Zusammenfassung
Die Behandlung von Azetabulumfrakturen stellt höchste Anforderungen an Kenntnisse der knöchernen Anatomie, der Expositionsmöglichkeiten über die anzuwendenden Zugänge sowie die frakturtypabhängige Indikationsstellung. Der Frakturklassifikation kommt dabei wesentliche Bedeutung im Rahmen der präoperativen Planung und Entscheidungsfindung zu. Das Ziel der anatomischen Gelenkrekonstruktion begründet sich aus der damit verbunden hohen Rate guter Langzeitergebnisse.
Es wird die klassische Standardversorgung von Azetabulumfrakturen dargestellt. Neben relevanten anatomischen Besonderheiten, biomechanischen und pathomechanischen Überlegungen werden die wichtigen radiologischen Grundlagen und die Wahl des Behandlungsverfahrens, konservativ und operativ, sowie die Grundlagen der operativen Zugangswahl dargestellt.
Die Besonderheiten des jeweiligen Frakturtyps wie Häufigkeit, Entstehungsmechanismus, Begleitverletzungen, Möglichkeiten der konservativen und operativen Therapie, Repositionsqualität nach operativer Versorgung sowie die jeweiligen Langzeitergebnisse werden analysiert.
Zusätzlich werden die epidemiologischen Daten zu allgemeinen postoperativen Komplikationen angegeben.
Abstract
Treatment of acetabular fractures requires extensive knowledge of the bony anatomy, the amount of possible exposure of the bone with the selected approaches and fracture type-dependent indications of operative treatment. Classification of the fracture with detailed analysis of the fracture morphology is the basis for decision making and planning. The primary treatment aim is the anatomic reconstruction of the acetabulum which results in optimal long-term results.
The basis of this overview is the presentation of standard treatment concepts in acetabular fracture surgery. Beside characteristics of the acetabular bony anatomy, biomechanical and pathomechanical principles and the relevant radiological anatomy, the treatment options, both conservative and operative and basic principles of the indications for standard surgical approaches will be discussed.
The special fracture type is discussed in detail regarding incidence, injury mechanism, concomitant injuries, options for conservative and operative treatment, quality of operative reduction and long-term results.
Furthermore, epidemiological data on typical postoperative complications are evaluated.
Literatur
Brueton R (1993) A review of 40 acetabular fractures: the importance of early surgery. Injury 24:171–174
Chiu FY, Chen CM, Lo WH (2000) Surgical treatment of displaced acetabular fractures – 72 cases followed for 10 (6–14) years. Injury 31:181–185
Ridder V de et al (1994) Results of 75 consecutive patients with an acetabular fracture. Clin Orthop 305:53–57
Deo SD et al (2001) Operative management of acetabular fractures in Oxford. Injury 32:581–586
Giannoudis PV et al (2005) Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:2–9
Hofmann A, Dahl C, Wyatt R (1984) Experience with acetabular fractures. J Trauma 24:750–752
Judet R, Letournel E (1973) Surgical management of fractures of the acetabulum. In: Tronzo R (Hrsg) Surgery of the hip joint. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, S 472–505
Kebaish A, Roy A, Rennie W (1991) Displaced acetabular fractures: long-term follow-up. J Trauma 31):1539–1542
Laird A, Keating J (2005) Acetabular fractures. A 16-year pospective epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:969–973
Letournel E, Judet R (1993) Fractures of the acetabulum. 2. Aufl. Springer, Berlin
Liebergall M et al (1999) Acetabular fractures. Clinical outcome of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop 366:205–216
Matta J et al (1986) Fractures of the acetabulum: a retrospective analysis. Clin Orthop 205:230–240
Matta J, Mehne D, Roffi R (1986) Fractures of the acetabulum: early results of a prospective study. Clin Orthop 186:241–250
Matta J (1996) Fractures of the acetabulum: accuracy of reduction and clinical results of fractures operated within three weeks after the injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:1632–1645
Mayo K (1994) Open reduction and internal fixation of fractures of the acetabulum – results in 163 fractures. Clin Orthop 305:31–37
Mears DC, Velyvis JH, Chang CP (2003) Displaced acetabular fractures managed operatively: indicators of outcome. Clin Orthop 407:173–186
Moed BR, WillsonCarr SE, Watson JT (2002) Results of operative treatment of fractures of the posterior wall of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:752–758
Murphy D et al (2003) Outcome after acetabular fracture. Prognostic factors and their inter-relationships. Injury 34:512–517
Olson S, Bay B, Hamel A (1997) Biomechanics of the hip joint and the effects of fracture of the acetabulum. Clin Orthop 339:92–104
Pohlemann T et al (1998) Beckenverletzungen/Pelvic Injuries. H Unfallchir 266
Ragnarsson B, Mjöberg B (1992) Arthrosis after surgically treated acetabular fractures, a retrospective study of 60 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 63:511–514
Rommens P, Broos P, Vanderschot P (1997) Vorbereitung und Technik der operativen Behandlung von 225 Acetabulumfrakturen Zweijahresergebnisse in 175 Fällen. Unfallchirurg 100:338–348
Ruesch P et al (1994) A prospective study of surgically treated acetabular fractures. Clin Orthop 305:38–46
Siebenrock KA et al (2002) Surgical dislocation of the femoral head for joint debridement and accurate reduction of fractures of the acetabulum. J Orthop Trauma 16:543–552
Tile M, Helfet D, Kellam J (2003) Fractures of the pelvis and acetabulum. 3. Aufl. William & Wilkins, Lippincott
Tscherne H, Pohlemann T (1998) Tscherne Unfallchirurgie: Becken und Acetabulum. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Ylinen P, Santavirta S, Slätis P (1989) Outcome of acetabular fractures: a 7 year follow-up. J Trauma 29:19–24
Zinghi G et al (2004) Fractures of the pelvis and acetabulum. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 153–229
Interessenkonflikt
Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gänsslen, A., Oestern, H. Azetabulumfrakturen. Chirurg 82, 1133–1150 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-011-2135-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-011-2135-3