Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: New Approaches to Classification and Management

  • Geriatrics (G Guglielmi, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of the present article is to review the new approaches to classification and management of fragility fractures of pelvis.

Recent Findings

Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFPs) account for approximately 7% of fragility fractures and are increasing in incidence due to the aging population, an increase in life expectancy, and a more active life-style. The FFPs are characterized by isolated bone disruption and are generally more stable than high-energy pelvic ring fractures due to intact ligaments. Due to differences in the degrees of instability, the traditional classification systems (Tile or Young and Burgess) for acute pelvic ring injuries from high-energy trauma may not be applicable to FFPs. Through a classification system based on fracture location and the degree of instability, FFPs can be appropriately managed with either conservative treatment or surgery.

Summary

Fragility fractures occur in patients with primary or secondary osteoporosis from low-energy trauma or no known trauma. FFPs are different from high-energy pelvic fractures in the degree of instability and the approach to fracture management. Diagnosis of FFPs requires a high index of suspicion and the early use of CT or MRI to prevent long-term complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance and •• Of major importance

  1. Cabarrus MC, Ambekar A, Lu Y, Link TM. MRI and CT of Insufficiency Fractures of the Pelvis and the Proximal Femur. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:995–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of osteoporotic pelvic fractures in elderly people in Finland: sharp increase in 1970–1997 and alarming projections for the new millennium. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:443–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian J, et al. The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:1439–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:465–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. •• Rommens PM, Hofmann A. Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: Recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury. 2013; 44:1733–1744. Based on retrospective review of 245 patients with fragility fractures of pelvis, the authors propose a noval classification system. The classification system is based on morphological criteria and corresponds with the degree of instability, most important criteria for the decision on either conservative treatment or surgery.

  6. Yoder K, Bartsokas J, Averell K, McBride E, Long C, Cook C. Risk factors associated with sacral stress fractures: a systematic review. J Man Manip Ther. 2015;23:84–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Soles GLS, Ferguson TA. Fragility fractures of the pelvis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2012;5:222–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Rousculp MP, Long SR, Wang S, Schoenfeld MJ, Meadows ES. Economic burden of osteoporosis related fractures in Medicaid. Value Health. 2007;10:144–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. •• Camacho PM, Petak SM, Binkley N, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis—2016. Endocr Pract Off J Am Coll Endocrinol Am Assoc Clin Endocrinol. 2016; 22:1–42. The paper provides evidence based recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis.

  10. • Wagner D, Ossendorf C, Gruszka D, Hofmann A, Rommens PM. Fragility fractures of the sacrum: how to identify and when to treat surgically? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015; 41:349–362. The authors review the clinical presentation, classification and current recommendations for diagnosis and management of fragility fractures of sacrum.

  11. Finiels H, Finiels PJ, Jacquot JM, Strubel D. Fractures of the sacrum caused by bone insufficiency. Meta-analysis of 508 cases. Presse Medicale Paris Fr 1983. 1997;26:1568–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lyders EM, Whitlow CT, Baker MD, Morris PP. Imaging and treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures. Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaup M, Wichmann JL, Scholtz J-E, Beeres M, Kromen W, Albrecht MH, Lehnert T, Boettcher M, Vogl TJ, Bauer RW. Dual-energy CT–based display of bone marrow edema in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: impact on diagnostic accuracy of radiologists with varying levels of experience in correlation to MR imaging. Radiology. 2016;280:510–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scheyerer MJ, Hüllner M, Pietsch C, Werner CML, Veit-Haibach P. Evaluation of pelvic ring injuries using SPECT/CT. Skeletal Radiol. 2015;44:217–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, Curtis JR, Delzell ES, Randall S, Dawson-Hughes B. The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine: recent us prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29:2520–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Denis F, Davis S, Comfort T. Sacral fractures: an important problem. Retrospective analysis of 236 cases. Clin Orthop. 1988;227:67–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dalal SA, Burgess AR, Siegel JH, Young JW, Brumback RJ, Poka A, Dunham CM, Gens D, Bathon H. Pelvic fracture in multiple trauma: classification by mechanism is key to pattern of organ injury, resuscitative requirements, and outcome. J Trauma. 1989;29:981–1000 discussion 1000–1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tile M. Pelvic ring fractures: should they be fixed? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70:1–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Gagna G, Mazel C. Transverse fracture of the upper sacrum. Suicidal jumper’s fracture. Spine. 1985;10:838–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta P, Barnwell JC, Lenchik L, Wuertzer SD, Miller AN. Spinopelvic dissociation: multidetector computed tomographic evaluation of fracture patterns and associated injuries at a single level 1 trauma center. Emerg Radiol. 2016;23:235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Taillandier J, Langue F, Alemanni M, Taillandier-Heriche E. Mortality and functional outcomes of pelvic insufficiency fractures in older patients. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum. 2003;70:287–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Breuil V, Roux CH, Testa J, Albert C, Chassang M, Brocq O, Euller-Ziegler L. Outcome of osteoporotic pelvic fractures: an underestimated severity. Survey of 60 cases. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum. 2008;75:585–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Morris RO, Sonibare A, Green DJ, Masud T. Closed pelvic fractures: characteristics and outcomes in older patients admitted to medical and geriatric wards. Postgrad Med J. 2000;76:646–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, Lewiecki EM, Tanner B, Randall S, Lindsay R. Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:2359–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mendel T, Noser H, Kuervers J, Goehre F, Hofmann GO, Radetzki F. The influence of sacral morphology on the existence of secure S1 and S2 transverse bone corridors for iliosacroiliac screw fixation. Injury. 2013;44:1773–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grechenig S, Gänsslen A, Gueorguiev B, Berner A, Müller M, Nerlich M, Schmitz P. PMMA-augmented SI screw: a biomechanical analysis of stiffness and pull-out force in a matched paired human cadaveric model. Injury. 2015;46:S125–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schmitz P, Baumann F, Grechenig S, Gaensslen A, Nerlich M, Müller MB. The cement-augmented transiliacal internal fixator (caTIFI): an innovative surgical technique for stabilization of fragility fractures of the pelvis. Injury. 2015;46(Suppl 4):S114–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kortman K, Ortiz O, Miller T, Brook A, Tutton S, Mathis J, Georgy B. Multicenter study to assess the efficacy and safety of sacroplasty in patients with osteoporotic sacral insufficiency fractures or pathologic sacral lesions. J NeuroInterventional Surg. 2013;5:461–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gupta AC, Chandra RV, Yoo AJ, Leslie-Mazwi TM, Bell DL, Mehta BP, Vanderboom TL, Rabinov JD, Larvie M, Hirsch JA. Safety and effectiveness of sacroplasty: a large single-center experience. Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:2202–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Kadlec Regional Medical Center, 888 Swift Blvd, Richland, WA, 99352, USA

    Pushpender Gupta

  2. Departments of Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, 1 Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Leon Lenchik & Scott D. Wuertzer

  3. Department of Radiology, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.130B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Pritish Bawa

Authors
  1. Pushpender Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leon Lenchik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pritish Bawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scott D. Wuertzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pushpender Gupta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Pushpender Gupta, Leon Lenchik, Pritish Bawa, and Scott D. Wuertzer each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Geriatrics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, P., Lenchik, L., Bawa, P. et al. Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: New Approaches to Classification and Management. Curr Radiol Rep 5, 65 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0259-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0259-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation