Long term results after surgical management of posterior wall acetabular fractures

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Table 1 Clinicoradiological workup of patients with acetabular fractures

Sr.	Sex/age (years)	Postoperative reduction	Associated lower-limb injury	BM1	Complications	Follow-up (years)	Final radiological outcome	Final d’Aubigné and Postel scores
1	Male, 37	Anatomical	Tibial plateau^a I/L	25	–	22	Good	Good
2	Male, 40	Anatomical	–	23	–	22	Excellent	Excellent
3	Male, 42	Anatomical	–	21	–	22	Excellent	Excellent
4	Male, 38	Anatomical	–	22	–	21	Good	Excellent
5	Male,42	Imperfect	–	32	AVN (THR)	21	Poor	Poor
6	Male, 42	Anatomical	–	24		20	Good	Good
7	Male, 52	Imperfect	–	21	–	20	Fair	Fair
8	Male, 48	Imperfect	–	23	AVN	20	Poor	Poor
9	Male, 32	Anatomical	–	23	Grade II HO	14	Good	Excellent
10	Male, 33	Anatomical	–	23	–	13	Excellent	Excellent
11	Male, 42	Anatomical	–	22	–	13	Excellent	Excellent
12	Male, 45	Anatomical	C/L^a SOF	23	–	13	Good	Excellent
13	Male, 46	Anatomical	–	24	Morel–Lavallee lesion	13	Excellent	Excellent
14	Male, 42	Anatomical	Both acetabulum	28	–	12	Fair	Fair
15	Female, 25	Anatomical	I/L^a SOF	22	–	12	Fair	Good
16	Male, 27	Anatomical	–	23	–	10	Excellent	Excellent
17	Male, 42	Anatomical	C/L femoral head	24	–	8	Good	Good
18	Female, 45	Anatomical	–	22	–	8	Excellent	Excellent
19	Male, 42	Anatomical	–	22	–	7	Excellent	Excellent
20	Female, 43	Anatomical	–	20	–	7	Excellent	Excellent
21	Male, 60	Anatomical	–	22	Postoperative sciatic neuropraxia	5	Good	Excellent
22	Male, 44	Imperfect	–	22	Grade II HO	5	Fair	Good
23	Female, 41	Anatomical	–	24	–	5	Excellent	Excellent
24	Male, 42	Anatomical	I/L^a SOF	22	AVN	5	Poor	Poor
25	Female, 40	Anatomical	–	21	–	5	Good	Good

BMI body mass index, SOF shaft of femur, C/L contralateral, I/L ipsilateral, HO heterotopic ossification, AVN avascular necrosis, THR total hip arthroplasty
^a Fracture