Imaging of Pelvic and Acetabular Trauma: Part 1, Osseous Findings.

Pelvic ring injuries and acetabular fractures are complex injuries and are often challenging to treat for a number of reasons. Orthopaedic trauma surgeons critically evaluate pelvic radiographs and CT images to generate an appropriate detailed injury and patient-specific preoperative plan. There are numerous crucial osseous details that surgeons should be aware of. Often, some of the most important factors that affect patients in treatment timing decisions, assessing reduction strategies, and deciding and inserting fixation constructs may be subtle on preoperative imaging. The radiographic and CT imaging findings covered subsequently should be sought out and appreciated preoperatively. Combining all the available osseous information helps the surgeon predict potential pitfalls and adjust surgical plans before incision. Ensuring a methodical and meticulous imaging review allows for the development of a detailed preoperative plan and helps avoid intraoperative missteps. This process will inherently streamline the surgical procedure and optimize the patient's surgical care. Maximizing the accuracy of the preoperative planning process can streamline the treatment algorithm and ultimately contribute to the best possible clinical outcome.

Imaging of Pelvic and Acetabular Trauma: Part 2, Soft-Tissue Findings.

Pelvic ring injuries and acetabular fractures can be complex and challenging to treat. Orthopaedic trauma surgeons scrutinize pelvic radiographs and accompanying CT images for the osseous details that help create a thorough patient-specific preoperative plan. While the osseous details are incredibly important, the surrounding soft-tissue structures are equally as critical and can have a tremendous effect on both the patient and the surgeon. These findings may change surgery timing, dictate the need for additional surgeons or multidisciplinary teams, and determine the treatment sequence. The structures and potential clinical findings reviewed and demonstrated through example images should be sought out during physical examination and correlative preoperative imaging review. Combining all the available osseous and nonosseous information with a detailed approach helps the surgeon predict potential pitfalls and adjust surgical plans before incision. Maximizing the accuracy of the preoperative planning process can streamline treatment algorithm development and ultimately contribute to the best possible clinical patient outcome.

A Biomechanical Comparison of Trochanteric Versus Piriformis Reconstruction Nails for Femoral Neck Fracture Prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare piriformis fossa to greater trochanteric entry cephalomedullary implants in an evaluation of femoral neck load to failure when the device is used for femoral shaft fractures with prophylaxis of an associated femoral neck fracture. METHODS: Thirty fourth-generation synthetic femur models were separated into 5 groups: intact femora, entry sites alone at the piriformis fossa or greater trochanter, and piriformis fossa and greater trochanteric entry sites after the insertion of a cephalomedullary nail. Each model was mechanically loaded with a flat plate against the superior femoral head along the mechanical axis and load to failure was recorded. RESULTS: Mean load to failure was 5487 ± 376 N in the intact femur, 3126 ± 387 N in the piriformis fossa entry site group, 3772 ± 558 N in the piriformis entry nail, 5332 ± 292 N for the greater trochanteric entry site, and 5406 ± 801 N for the greater trochanteric nail group. Both piriformis groups were significantly lower compared with the intact group. Both greater trochanteric groups were similar to the intact group and were statistically higher than the piriformis groups. CONCLUSIONS: A piriformis fossa entry site with or without an intramedullary implant weakens the femoral neck in load to failure testing. A greater trochanteric entry yields a load to failure equivalent to that of an intact femoral neck. Instrumentation with a greater trochanteric cephalomedullary nail is significantly stronger than a piriformis fossa cephalomedullary nail during axial loading in a composite femur model.