Different treatment options for acetabular fractures in the elderly and nonagenarians exist; a consistent guideline has not been established, yet. The purpose of this study is to give an overview of how those fractures can be handled and compares two different surgical treatment methods. A total of 89 patients ≥ 18 years between 2016 and 2021 with acetabular fractures in our department received a surgical intervention with plate fixation via the Stoppa approach or a total hip arthroplasty with a Burch–Schneider ring and integrated cup. 60 patients ≥ 65 were compared in two groups, 29 patients between 65 and 79 and 31 patients ≥ 80. For comparison, data on operation times, hospitalization, complications during operation and hospital stay, blood loss and postoperative mobilization were collected. Characteristics could be found for indications for operative osteosynthesis or endoprosthetics based on the X-ray analysis. There was a tendency to treat simple fractures with osteosynthesis. Patients between 65 and 79 with an osteosynthesis had benefits in almost every comparison. Patients ≥ 80 with a plate fixation had advantages in the categories of postoperative complications, blood loss and transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates. Statistical significant differences were noticed in both groups regarding the operation time. Patients between 65 and 79 with osteosynthesis had significant benefits for postoperative complications, hospitalization, number of blood transfusions and postoperative mobilization. Finding the best supportive treatment option is difficult, and decision-making must respect fracture patterns and individual risk factors. This study shows that plate fixation via the Stoppa approach has some benefits.

Background: In case of injuries to the subaxial cervical spine, especially in osteoporotic bone, the question of the most stable operative technique arises. There are several techniques of screw fixation available regarding dorsal stabilization. This study investigates 2 techniques (lateral mass screws (LMS) vs cervical pedicle screws (CPS)) in the subaxial cervical spine regarding primary stability in a biomechanical testing using a translational injury model.Methods: A total of 10 human formalin fixed and 10 human fresh-frozen specimens (C 4 -T 1) were investigated. Specimens were randomized in 2 groups. Fracture generation of a luxation injury between C 5 and C 6 was created by a transection of all ligamentous structures as well as the intervertebral disc and a resection of the facet joints.Dorsal stabilization of C 4/C 5 to C 6/C 7 was performed in group A by lateral mass screws, in group B by pedicle screws. In the biomechanical testing, the specimens were loaded at 2 N/s in translation direction until implant failure.Results: Formalin fixed specimen: Mean load failure was 513.8 (±86.74) Newton (N) for group A (LMS) and 570.4 (±156.5) N for group B (CPS). There was no significant difference (P = .6905).Fresh frozen specimen: Mean load failure was 402.3 (±96.4) N for group A (LMS) and 500.7 (±190.3) N for group B (CPS). There was no significant difference (P = .4206). Conclusion:In our loading model respecting the translational injury pattern and a flexion movement we could not verify statistically significant differences between lateral mass screws and cervical pedicle screws. Mean loading failure was slightly higher in the CPS group though.Abbreviations: BMD = bone mineral density, CPS = cervical pedicle screws, CT = computed tomography, DXA = dual-energy Xray absorptiometry, LMS = lateral mass screws, N = Newton.

No abstract

No abstract