Percutaneous operative treatment of fragility fractures of the pelvis may not increase the general rate of complications compared to non-operative treatment

Abstract

Purpose: Despite an increasing number of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) over the last 2 decades, controversy persists on their therapy with special regard to potential complications. Therefore, the present study compared the complication rates and in-hospital mortality of non-operative therapy, percutaneous treatment and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of pelvic fractures in elderly patients.

Methods: All consecutive patients treated for FFP between January 2013 and December 2017 aged 65 years or older were retrospectively identified from an institutional database. Demographic data and specific patient data were collected with a special focus on pre-existing comorbidities. General and surgical complications, hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality rates were compared.

Results: 379 patients (81.3 ± 7.5 years; 81% female) were identified, 211 (55.7%) were treated non-operatively, 74 (19.5%) percutaneously and 94 (24.8%) with ORIF. The rate of general complications did not differ between treatment groups (non-operative: 21.8%; percutaneous: 28.4%; ORIF: 33.0%; p = 0.103). Surgery-related complications were twofold more frequent in the ORIF group as than in the percutaneously treated group (18.1% vs. 9.5%). The LOS differed significantly (non-operatively: 8.9 ± 7.1 days; percutaneous: 16.6 ± 8.2 days; ORIF: 19.3 ± 12.8 days; p < 0.001). Hospital mortality rate was higher in patients with ORIF (5.3%) than percutaneous treatment (0%) (p = 0.044).

Conclusions: Complication rates and hospital mortality in elderly patients with FFPs are high and associated with long LOS. For surgical treatment of FFPs, the complication rate and mortality can be significantly reduced using percutaneous procedures compared to ORIF. Therefore, percutaneous surgery should be preferred where possible.

Keywords: Complications; Fragility fractures of the pelvis; Mortality; Non-operative treatment; Operative treatment.

Fig. 1

Study protocol. Patients treated for fragility fractures of the pelvis between 01/2013 and 12/2017 with complete data and aged ≥ 65 years were evaluated. Patients with multiple injuries and patients treated solely in the outpatient clinic were excluded (ISS = Injury Severity Score)

Fig. 2

Fracture distribution of the fragility fractures of the pelvis according to Rommens and Hofmann [6]

Fig. 3

Type and frequency of treatment depending on FFP classification