Skip to main content

Table 1 Outcome studies of operative treatment of displaced acetabular fractures listed in order of number of cases surgically treated with follow-up, year of publication, country of origin, number of cases, average follow-up period (F/U yrs), G-E results OR survivorship (% survival at 10 or 20 yrs), and negative prognostic factors

From: Outcomes after surgical treatment of acetabular fractures: a review

Author

Year

Country

Cases (F/U yrs)

G-E Result/Survivorship

Negative prognostic factors

Tannast/Matta et al [3]

2012

USA

816 (2–20)

85% (10YR)

79% (20 YRS)

FHI, PW, AGE, DISP, MI

Letournel/Judet [4]

1993

FRANCE

492 (1–33)

80%

PC/PW, AW, PR

Mears et al [48]

2003

USA

424 (9.3)

89%

PR, FN, DEL > 11, AF, SI, FHI, OB, AW, AGE

Matta [20]

1996

USA

255 (6)

76%

AGE, FHI, SI, TT/PW

Clarke-Jenssen et al [49]

2017

NORWAY

253 (12)

86% (10YRS)

FHI, SI

Madhu et al [53]

2006

UK

237 (2.9)

76%

DEL > 15 (EF), DEL > 10(AF)

Murphy et ala [65]

2003

IRELAND

180 (6.3)

78%

AF, AGE, PR > 3, HO, LC

Rommens et al [66]

1997

BELGIUM

175 (2)

76%

TT/PW

Mayo [67]

1994

USA

163 (3.7)

75%

–

Briffa et al [26]

2011

UK

161 (11.3)

72%

AGE, DEL > 15, PR, PC/TT, FHI

Pennal et ala [51]

1980

CANADA

103 (7.25)

–

FX, WB, PR, AGE, PELVIS

Wright et al [56]

1994

USA

87 (3.6)

45%

DL, HO, AVN, AGE, PR, EXP

Zha et alb [23]

2013

CHINA

86 (3.2)

84%

CPWF, FHI, PR

Fica et al [68]

1998

CHILE

84 (5.5)

67%

TT, PR, AGE, AVN

Zhi et al [69]

2011

CHINA

82 (2.8)

71%

FX, AGE, LE FX, PR, DEL, DL

Rommens et al [50]

2011

GERMANY

77 (3.7)

70%

CPWF, SI, IAF

Almedia et al [70]

2011

BRAZIL

76 (4.9)

81%

PR, LOR, DI

Deo et al [71]

2001

UK

74 (2.6)

74%

FH, PR, NERVE/DL

Chen et al [72]

2000

TAIWAN

73 (7.5)

74%

PR

Uchida et al [73]

2013

JAPAN

71 (8.6)

90%

PR, AVN, SI

Ragnarsson et al [74]

1992

SWEDEN

55 (15)

60%

PR

Heeg et al [75]

1990

HOLLAND

54 (9.6)

61%

PR, HO

Kebaish et al [54]

1991

CANADA

54 (4.7)

86%

EXP, PR

Ruesch/Mast et al [76]

1994

USA

53 (1+)

81%

N/A

De Ridder et al [55]

1994

HOLLAND

51 (3)

76%

–

Oranksy et al [77]

1993

ITALY

50 (3.5)

76%

DEL > 21, PR, EXP

Chiu et alc [33]

1996

CHINA

27 (7)

81%

–

Brueton [78]

1993

UK

26 (2.2)

61%

PR, DEL > 17

  1. G-E results good to excellent results, FHI femoral head injury, CPWF comminuted posterior wall fragment, AW anterior wall fracture, PR poor reduction, SI subchondral impaction, IAF intra-articular fragment, FX fracture pattern, WB damage to wb dome, PELVIS injury to the pelvic ring, AGE patient age > 40, FN ipsilateral fem. neck fx, AF associated fx, EF elementary fx, EXP surgeon experience, DEL delay to surgery (i.e. delay > 15 days), TT t-shaped acetabular fracture, PW posterior wall acetabular fracture, DI deep infection, LOR loss of reduction, NERVE nerve injury, DL dislocation, LE FX lower extremity fracture, OB obesity, HO heterotopic ossification, LC local complications
  2. a This study utilized different surgical approaches
  3. b Cohort of elderly patients
  4. c Cohort of operatively treated posterior wall fractures