Advertisement

Age and “general health”—beside fracture classification—affect the therapeutic decision for geriatric pelvic ring fractures: a German pelvic injury register study

  • Andreas HöchEmail author
  • Philipp Pieroh
  • Florian Gras
  • Tim Hohmann
  • Sven Märdian
  • Francis Holmenschlager
  • Holger Keil
  • Hans-Georg Palm
  • Steven C. Herath
  • Christoph Josten
  • Hagen Schmal
  • Fabian M. Stuby
  • Pelvic Injury Register of the German Trauma Society
Original Paper
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Pelvic ring fractures in the elderly gain increasing importance. Nonetheless, data on factors influencing treatment decision in relation to fracture classification, age, and the resulting treatment are still rare.

Methods

Prospectively collected data of the German Pelvic Injury Registry from patients aged over 65 years with a pelvic ring fracture were evaluated retrospectively. Acetabular fractures, as well as type A1 and A3 fractures, were excluded. The variables age, injury pattern, type of treatment, the reason for conservative treatment, and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA)/Tile classification were analyzed. Furthermore, the fracture distribution was examined after dividing patients into six age groups.

Results

A total of 1814 patients with a mean age of 80.7 ± 7.6 years, predominantly female (79.0%), were available for evaluation. The majority of patients suffered from isolated pelvic ring fractures (70.1%) and 8.2% were severely injured (ISS > 16). The most common fracture types were type A2 (35.4%), type B2 (38.0%), and type C1 (7.3%). Especially pelvic ring fractures of type A2 (96.9%) and type B2 (83.0%) were treated conservatively (overall 76.9%). Fracture instability according to the OTA/Tile classification increased the probability for an operative treatment (generalized odds ratio [OR] 6.90 [5.62; 8.52]). In contrary, increasing age independent of the fracture pattern decreased this probability (OR 0.47 [0.41–0.53]). With increasing fracture instability, general health conditions were up to 50% of the reasons for conservative treatment.

Conclusion

The results of the present study underline the importance of the factors age and general health besides fracture classification for therapeutic decision-making in the treatment of pelvic ring fractures in the elderly.

Keywords

Pelvic fracture Fragility fracture Pelvis Treatment Epidemiology 

Notes

Authors’ contributions

Conceived and designed the study: AH, PP, CJ, and FMS

Data acquisition: AH, FG, SM, FH, HK, HGP, SCH, HS, and FMS

Analyzed the data: AH, PP, TH, CJ, and FMS

Wrote and draft the paper: AH, PP, FG, HS, and FMS

Approved the final version of the manuscript: AH, PP, FG, TH, SM, FH, HK, HGP, SCH, HS, CJ, and FMS

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

264_2019_4326_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Keller JM, Sciadini MF, Sinclair E et al (2012) Geriatric trauma: demographics, injuries, and mortality. J Orthop Trauma 26(9):e161–e165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrich S, Haastert B, Neuhaus E et al (2015) Epidemiology of pelvic fractures in Germany: considerably high incidence rates among older people. PLoS One 10(9):e0139078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrich S, Haastert B, Neuhaus E et al (2017) Excess mortality after pelvic fractures among older people. J Bone Miner Res 32(9):1789–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nanninga GL, de LK, Panneman MJM et al (2014) Increasing rates of pelvic fractures among older adults: the Netherlands, 1986-2011. Age Ageing 43(5):648–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verbeek DO, Ponsen KJ, Fiocco M et al (2018) Pelvic fractures in the Netherlands: epidemiology, characteristics and risk factors for in-hospital mortality in the older and younger population. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28(2):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ojodu I, Pohlemann T, Hopp S et al (2015) Predictors of mortality for complex fractures of the pelvic ring in the elderly: a twelve-year review from a German level I trauma center. Injury 46(10):1996–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Esdaile J et al (2002) Classification systems in orthopaedics. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 10(4):290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rollmann MF, Herath SC, Holstein JH et al (2017) Surgical treatment of pelvic ring fractures in the elderly now and then: a pelvic registry study. Aging Clin Exp Res 29(4):639–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rommens PM, Gercek E, Hansen M et al (2003) Mortality, morbidity and functional outcome after open book and lateral compression lesions of the pelvic ring. A retrospective analysis of 100 type B pelvic ring lesions according to Tile's classification. Unfallchirurg 106(7):542–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pohlemann T, Stengel D, Tosounidis G et al (2011) Survival trends and predictors of mortality in severe pelvic trauma: estimates from the German pelvic trauma registry initiative. Injury 42(10):997–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang H, Phillips JL, Robinson RD et al (2015) Predictors of mortality among initially stable adult pelvic trauma patients in the US: data analysis from the National Trauma Data Bank. Injury 46(11):2113–2117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loggers SAI, Joosse P, Jan Ponsen K (2018) Outcome of pubic rami fractures with or without concomitant involvement of the posterior ring in elderly patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-018-0971-2
  13. 13.
    Keil DS, Gross S, Seymour RB et al (2018) Mortality after high-energy pelvic fractures in patients of age 65 years or older. J Orthop Trauma 32(3):124–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J et al (2007) Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 21(10 Suppl):S1–S133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hauschild O, Strohm PC, Culemann U et al (2008) Mortality in patients with pelvic fractures: results from the German pelvic injury register. J Trauma 64(2):449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edwardes MD, Baltzan M (2000) The generalization of the odds ratio, risk ratio and risk difference to r x k tables. Stat Med 19(14):1901–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clement ND, Court-Brown CM (2014) Elderly pelvic fractures: the incidence is increasing and patient demographics can be used to predict the outcome. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24(8):1431–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Höch A, Özkurtul O, Pieroh P et al (2017) Outcome and 2-year survival rate in elderly patients with lateral compression fractures of the pelvis. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 8(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maier GS, Kolbow K, Lazovic D et al (2016) Risk factors for pelvic insufficiency fractures and outcome after conservative therapy. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 67:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henry SM, Pollak AN, Jones AL et al (2002) Pelvic fracture in geriatric patients: a distinct clinical entity. J Trauma 53(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Böhme J, Höch A, Boldt A et al (2012) Influence of routine CT examination on fracture classification and therapy for pelvic ring fractures in patients aged over 65 years old. Z Orthop Unfall 150(5):477–483Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rommens PM, Hofmann A (2013) Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury 44(12):1733–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kanakaris NK, Greven T, West RM et al (2017) Implementation of a standardized protocol to manage elderly patients with low energy pelvic fractures: can service improvement be expected? Int Orthop 41(9):1813–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmal H, Froberg L, S Larsen M et al (2018) Evaluation of strategies for the treatment of type B and C pelvic fractures. Bone Joint J 100-B(7):973–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eckardt H, Egger A, Hasler RM et al (2017) Good functional outcome in patients suffering fragility fractures of the pelvis treated with percutaneous screw stabilisation: assessment of complications and factors influencing failure. Injury 48(12):2717–2723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haws BE, Wuertzer S, Lenchik L et al (2015) Misclassification of pelvic ring injuries in the National Trauma Data Bank. J Orthop Trauma 29(10):460–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Höch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philipp Pieroh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Florian Gras
    • 3
  • Tim Hohmann
    • 2
  • Sven Märdian
    • 4
  • Francis Holmenschlager
    • 5
  • Holger Keil
    • 6
    • 7
  • Hans-Georg Palm
    • 8
  • Steven C. Herath
    • 9
  • Christoph Josten
    • 1
  • Hagen Schmal
    • 10
  • Fabian M. Stuby
    • 11
  • Pelvic Injury Register of the German Trauma Society
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics, Trauma and Plastic SurgeryUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and Cell BiologyMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Department of Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity Hospital JenaJenaGermany
  4. 4.Centre for Musculoskeletal SurgeryCharité - University Medicine BerlinBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Department of Trauma SurgeryOtto-von-Guericke-UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  6. 6.Department for Trauma, Hand Surgery and OrthopedicsHospital of KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  7. 7.Clinic for Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen at the University of HeidelbergMINTOS - Medical Imaging and Navigation in Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryLudwigshafenGermany
  8. 8.Trauma Research Group, Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Reconstructive and Septic Surgery, and Sports TraumatologyGerman Armed Forces Hospital UlmUlmGermany
  9. 9.Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive SurgerySaarland University HospitalHomburgGermany
  10. 10.Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital and Department of Clinical ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  11. 11.Department of Trauma SurgeryBG Trauma Centre MurnauMurnauGermany

Personalised recommendations