Clinical Results of Acetabular Fracture via the Pararectus versus Ilioinguinal Approach

Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review (part I)

BACKGROUND

There are indications that clinical studies investigating the surgical treatment of acetabular fractures assess different outcomes. This heterogeneity reduces the comparability of study results and, thus, limits the knowledge generated from research. Core outcome sets (COS) contain a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured in studies investigating a specific disease or injury. A COS for surgically treated acetabular fractures does not yet exist. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify the reported outcomes in studies investigating the surgical treatment of acetabular fractures.

METHODS

Studies including skeletally mature individuals (≥ 16 years) with isolated acetabular fractures treated surgically were included. Studies with polytrauma patients, pathological fractures, additional pelvic fractures, exclusively non-surgical treatment, or juvenile individuals were excluded. Three databases and two clinical trial registries were searched on 15 November 2022. The identified outcomes were grouped and subsequently categorized according to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 193 studies were included, which reported a cumulative total of 2581 outcomes. After grouping, 266 unique outcomes were identified. No outcome was examined in all studies. Pain, ability to walk independently, range of motion, quality of reduction, and heterotopic ossification were the most reported unique outcomes and assessed in at least 60% of included studies. A total of 105 outcomes were only assessed in one of the included studies. Outcomes of all five core areas and 25 outcome domains of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy were examined. Furthermore, outcomes were named and defined differently, measured at different time points, and assessed using a variety of measurement instruments.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this systematic review shows that a wide range of outcomes are measured in studies examining surgical treatment of acetabular fractures. The results of this systematic review will be used in a subsequent study to develop the COS for surgically treated acetabular fractures by using the Delphi method.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42022357644; COMET: 2123.

Comparative evaluation and ranking of anterior surgical approaches for acetabular fractures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the outcome of pararectus, ilioinguinal, and intrapelvic approaches in patients with acetabular fracture and to rank the best, second best, and third best surgical approach.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Epistemonikos, and Embase up to 30 November 2024. A network meta-analyses was conducted to assess the outcomes of pararectus, ilioinguinal, and intrapelvic surgical approaches. Random-effects models with mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for continuous and binary variables, respectively, all with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 30 primary studies (2,348 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the pararectus and intrapelvic approach in overall complications (OR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.47 to 1.58). The pararectus approach had 0.51 lower odds for overall complications compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.28 to 0.94). The intrapelvic approach had 0.59 lower odds for overall complications compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.37 to 0.94). There was no statistically significant difference between the pararectus and intrapelvic approach in reduction quality (OR 1.32, 95 % CI 0.89 to 1.95). The pararectus approach had 2.02 higher odds for reduction quality compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 2.02, 95 % CI 1.30 to 3.15). The intrapelvic approach had 1.53 higher odds for reduction quality compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 1.53, 95 % CI 1.12 to 2.10). There was no statistically significant difference between the pararectus and intrapelvic approach in intraoperative blood loss (MD -31.38, 95 % CI -105.62 to 42.85). The pararectus approach had a 207.35 mL lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the ilioinguinal approach (MD -207.35, 95 % CI -288.52 to -126.18). The intrapelvic approach had a 175.97 mL lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the ilioinguinal approach (MD -175.97, 95 % CI -233.51 to -118.42).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to rank the three anterior surgical approaches for acetabular fractures. The findings establish that while the pararectus and intrapelvic approaches are comparable, the ilioinguinal approach ranks third. The superior outcomes of the pararectus and intrapelvic approaches in complications, operative efficiency, and reduction quality highlight their importance in surgical practice.

Anterior extrapelvic approaches to the acetabulum

Anterior approaches to the acetabulum can be distinguished into extrapelvic, intrapelvic and combined extrapelvic and intrapelvic approaches. Historically, the extrapelvic ilioinguinal approach was introduced in the French, English and German literature during the late 60s and became gradually the Gold-standard in treating anterior acetabular fractures. In the meantime, the intrapelvic approach, introduced by the Helsinki group, is favored by many surgeons with ongoing interest allowing direct antero-medial access to the true pelvis below the linea terminalis, to the quadrilateral plate and medial side of the posterior column. More recently, more supero-medial approaches, allowing access to the large and true pelvis have been developed, e.g. the Pararectus approach. The historical development, the value and approach-related results of the ilioinguinal approach are analyzed and discussed.

Does the pararectus approach have better outcomes and fewer complications than the modified Stoppa approach for the fixation of acetabular fractures in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis?

BACKGROUND

The pararectus approach is a minimally invasive surgical approach for anterior acetabulum fracture, with an advantage of the medial window of the modified Stoppa approach (MSA). However, it is unclear whether the pararectus approach is superior to MSA. We aimed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes and complications of pararectus and MSA.

METHODS

We performed a data search by conducting an electronic search across databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinahl, CNKI, and Cochrane Library and included seven comparative studies for analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan software 5.4.1. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool for RCTs and the MINORS tool for non-RCTs.

RESULTS

Two randomized control trials (RCTs), one prospective study, and four retrospective studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed a better Matta's reduction quality [OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06, 2.37; p = 0.03] and radiological outcome [OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.03, 4.60; p = 0.04] in MSA than in pararectus approach. However, the pararectus approach has less intraoperative blood loss [MD - 9.79 (95% CI - 176.75, - 6.83; p = 0.03)] and a shorter hospital stay [MD - 2.61 (95% CI - 5.03, - .18; p = 0.04)] than MSA. Both approaches have failed to show a difference concerning overall complication rates [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.28, 1.55; p = 0.34)], postoperative infection, DVT, duration of surgery [MD - 15.09 (95% CI - 35.38, 5.20; p = 0.15)], functional outcome, and incision length.

CONCLUSION

The pararectus approach offers an advantage with lesser operative blood loss and shorter hospital stay, whilst MSA stands out with better reduction quality and radiological outcomes. Nevertheless, both approaches exhibit no difference in complication rates, duration of surgery, incision length, and functional outcome. Hence, the pararectus approach can be considered an alternative to MSA; however, the existing literature fails to demonstrate a distinct advantage over MSA.

[Experiences with the infra-acetabular screw placement technique in acetabular fracture surgery]

Objective

To investigate the application experiences and effectiveness of the infra-acetabular screw (IAS) placement technique in acetabular fracture surgery.

Methods

A clinical data of 34 patients with complex acetabular fractures with anterior and posterior columns separation, who were admitted between January 2019 and October 2023 and treated with IAS fixation, was retrospectively analyzed. There were 23 males and 11 females with an average age of 55.3 years (range, 18-78 years). The acetabular fractures caused by traffic accident in 20 cases, falling from height in 12 cases, crushing injury in 1 case, and bruising with a heavy object in 1 case. According to the Letournel-Judet classification, there were 7 cases of anterior column fracture, 8 cases of anterior wall/column plus posterior hemi-transverse fracture, 2 cases of T-shaped fracture, and 17 cases of both-column fracture. The time from injury to surgery was 4-21 days (mean, 8.6 days). The time of IAS placement and the intraoperative blood loss were recorded. After surgery, the X-ray film and CT scan were re-examined, and the modified Matta score was used to assess the quality of fracture reduction. The trajectory of IAS in the channel was analyzed based on CT scan, and the screw length was measured. During follow-up, the fracture healing was observed and the hip function was assessed according to the modified Merle d'Aubigné-Postel scoring system at last follow-up.

Results

The IAS was successfully implanted in all 34 patients. The length of IAS ranged from 70 to 100 mm (mean, 86.2 mm). The time of IAS placement ranged from 10 to 40 minutes (mean, 20.7 minutes). The intraoperative blood loss ranged from 520 to 820 mL (mean, 716.8 mL). All patients were followed up 8-62 months (mean, 21.8 months). After surgery, 4 patients developed lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury, 2 developed popliteal vein thrombosis of the lower extremity, 3 developed incision infection, and no surgical complication such as arteriovenous injury or obturator nerve palsy occurred. At last follow-up, the hip function was rated as excellent in 14 cases, good in 13 cases, fair in 4 cases, and poor in 3 cases according to the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel scoring system, with an excellent and good rate of 79.41%. Imaging re-examined showed that the quality of fracture reduction was rated as excellent in 9 cases, good in 19 cases, and poor in 6 cases according to the modified Matta score, with an excellent and good rate of 82.35%; and 25 (73.53%) IAS trajectories were located in the channel. All fractures obtained bony union, and the healing time was 12-24 weeks (mean, 18 weeks). During follow-up, there was no loosening or fracture of the plate and screws.

Conclusion

IAS placement technique can effectively strengthen internal fixation and prevent fracture re-displacement, making it a useful adjunct for treating complex acetabular fractures with anterior and posterior columns separation.

A systemic review and meta-analysis of pararectus versus ilioinguinal approach for the management of acetabular fractures

PURPOSE

The complex anatomy of acetabular fracture needs a surgical approach that can achieve anatomical reduction with fewer complications for the fixation of these fractures. Current literature suggests that both Pararectus (PR) approach and Ilioinguinal (IL) approach can be used for the fixation of these fractures safely. However, superiority of the PR approach over the IL approach is not established. Hence, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the PR versus IL approach.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search was performed on five databases Medline/PubMed, Scopus Embase, Cinhal, and Cochrane Library, from the inception to January 14, 2023. A qualitative and quantitative analysis was done for the five eligible studies from the literature search. Individual study characteristics data and outcomes were extracted, and Software version 5.4.1 of Review Manager was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Five articles, one Randomized trial (RCT), and four retrospective articles were included and analyzed in this meta-analysis. PR approach has a shorter surgical time [mean difference (MD) -48.4 with 95% CI -74.49, -22.30; p = 0.0003], less intraoperative blood loss (MD -123.22 with 95% CI -212.28, -34.15; p = 0.007), and smaller surgical incision (MD -9.87 with 95% CI -15.21, -4.52; p = 0.0003) than the IL approach. However, the meta-analysis failed to show a difference between the two surgical approaches concerning the quality of reduction, overall complications, nerve injury, vascular injury, heterotopic ossification, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSION

The PR approach has a shorter surgical duration, less blood loss, and a smaller surgical incision than the IL approach. However, both surgical approaches have equivocal results regarding fracture reduction quality, complication rates, and functional outcomes for acetabular fracture fixation. Hence, for acetabular fractures fixation, PR approach can be considered a safe and feasible alternative to the IL approach.

Efficacy and safety of pararectus approach for the treatment of acetabular fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The pararectus (PR) approach combines the advantages of the second window of the ilioinguinal approach and the medial view of the modified Stoppa approach. However, it is unclear whether the PR approach is more effective or safer than the other approaches, as few clinical studies have compared the PR approach with the other approaches. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the PR approach with the other approaches for the treatment of acetabular fractures and to answer the following question: Are the results of the PR approach superior to those of the other approaches in terms of reduction quality, operative time, operative blood loss, complications, and clinical outcomes for treatment of acetabular fractures?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using relevant original studies from various databases. Pooling of data was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). A p-value<0.05 was considered to be significant. We calculated the mean differences for continuous data and odds ratio for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals for each outcome. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed based on I2 using the standard χ2 test.

RESULTS

Five studies were included in this meta-analysis. The findings demonstrated that operative blood loss was significantly lower in the PR approach than in the other approaches (p=0.04). There was no significant difference in the rate of anatomical reduction, the operative time, the rate of complications, and the rate of excellent or good clinical score between the PR approach and the other approaches.

DISCUSSION

The PR approach provided lower operative blood loss, although there was no significant difference in reduction quality, operative time, complications, and excellent or good clinical score between the PR approach and the other approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Drain vs. no-drain for acetabular fractures after treatment via a modified stoppa approach: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of close suction drainage (CSD) and no-CSD after a modified Stoppa approach for the surgical fixation of acetabular fractures.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 49 consecutive acetabular fracture patients, who presented to a single level I trauma center for surgical fixation, using a modified Stoppa approach from January 2018 to January 2021. All surgeries were performed by a senior surgeon using the same approach, and the patients were divided into two groups based on whether CSD was used after the operation. Details of the patient demographics, fracture characteristics, intraoperative indicators, reduction quality, intra and postoperative blood transfusion, clinical outcomes, and incision-related complications were collected.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in the demographics, fracture characteristics, intraoperative indicators, reduction quality, clinical outcomes, and incision-related complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). The use of CSD was associated with a significantly higher postoperative blood transfusion volume (P = 0.034) and postoperative blood transfusion rate (P = 0.027). In addition, there was a significant difference in postoperative temperatures, especially on postoperative Day 2 (no-CSD 36.97 ± 0.51°C vs. CSD 37.34 ± 0.69°C, P = 0.035), and higher visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, especially on postoperative Day 1 (no-CSD 3.00 ± 0.93 vs. CSD 4.14 ± 1.43, P = 0.002) and 3 (no-CSD 1.73 ± 0.94 vs. CSD 2.48 ± 1.08, P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that routine use of CSD should not be recommended for patients with acetabular fractures after surgical fixation using a modified Stoppa approach.

[The pararectus approach: surgical procedure for acetabular fractures]

OBJECTIVE

The pararectus approach was rediscovered several years ago for pelvic surgery and described as an alternative approach especially for the treatment of acetabular fractures of the anterior column involving the quadrilateral plate.

INDICATIONS

For optimal visualization of acetabular fractures involving the quadrilateral plate, fractures of the anterior wall and anterior column, anterior column/posterior hemitransverse fractures, and fractures with central impression of dome fragments, the pararectus approach has proven to be a useful access.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

The pararectus approach is not used for posterior column fractures, posterior wall fractures, combined posterior wall and posterior column fractures, transverse fractures with displaced posterior column or in combination with posterior wall fractures, and T‑fractures with displaced posterior column or in combination with posterior wall fractures.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The entire pelvic ring, including the quadrilateral plate, can be accessed via the pararectus approach. The choice of the correct surgical window depends on the fracture location and the requirements of fracture reduction.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

In general, partial weight-bearing should be maintained for 6 weeks, although earlier weight-bearing release may be possible if necessary, depending on fracture pattern and osteosynthesis. Particularly in geriatric patients, partial weight-bearing is often not possible, so that early and often relatively uncontrolled full weight-bearing has to be accepted.

RESULTS

In a comparative gait analysis between patients following surgical stabilization of an isolated unilateral acetabular fracture through the pararectus approach and healthy subjects, sufficient stability and motion function of the pelvis and hip during walking was already evident in the early postoperative phase.

Clinical Outcomes of the Modified Stoppa Combined with Iliac Fossa Approach for Complex Acetabular Fractures: A Medium- and Long-term Retrospective Study

Objective

The modified Stoppa combined with iliac fossa approach has gained increasing popularity. Although early clinical outcomes have been satisfactory, extensive long‐term clinical outcomes are relatively scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the medium‐ and long‐term outcomes of this approach for complex acetabular fractures.

Methods

This was a retrospective study involving 57 patients with complex acetabular fractures from January 2009 to January 2016. All fractures were treated with the modified Stoppa combined with iliac fossa approach. Follow‐up was at least 5 years. Primary outcome measures, including quality of reduction and clinical outcomes, were recorded by an independent observer. Secondary outcome measures included time to surgery, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complications.

Results

Fifty‐seven patients (range, 18–80 years) included 46 males and 11 females. There were 32 cases on the left side and 25 cases on the right side. The most common associated injury was pulmonary contusion. According to the Judet–Letournel classification, there were 27 both‐column fractures, 16 anterior column with posterior hemitransverse fractures and 14 T‐type fractures. The average time from injury to surgery was 7.3 days. The average intraoperative blood loss and transfusion were 750.9 ml and 564.3 ml, respectively. All fractures healed within 6 months after surgery. The average follow‐up time was 7.7 years, and there was no loss of follow‐up. The quality of reduction was graded as anatomical in 23 cases (40.4%), imperfect in 22 cases (38.6%), and poor in 12 cases (21.0%). According to grading system of Merle d’ Aubigne and Postel, clinical outcomes at 1 year follow‐up were excellent in 17 cases (29.8%), good in 25 cases (43.9%), fair in four cases (7.0%), and poor in 11 cases (19.3%). The excellent and good rate was 73.7% and the difference was not statistically significant compared with the clinical outcomes at the last follow‐up. Intraoperative complications included four cases of obturator nerve injury and two cases of vascular injury. Postoperative complications included one case of wound delayed healing, two cases of deep vein thrombosis, two cases of avascular necrosis of femoral head, three cases of heterotopic ossification and five cases of post‐traumatic arthritis. Only one of these patients underwent reoperation for femoral head necrosis.

Conclusions

The modified Stoppa combined with iliac fossa approach can achieve satisfactory reduction quality and hip function. It might be a valuable alternative to the ilioinguinal approach for the surgical management of acetabular fractures.