HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Harris, J. H. Articles by Trotscher, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Harris, J. H., Jr. Articles by Trotscher, T. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Acetabular Fractures Revisited: Part 2, A New CT-Based Classification

¹ Department of Radiology, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, 6431 Fannin, Houston, TX 77030.
² Present address: 200 Alta Vista Dr., Sedona, AZ 86351.
³ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, TX.
⁴ Present address: 2019 Red Magnolia Ct., Kingwood, TX 77339.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this investigation was to provide a new CT-based classification of acetabular fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The axial CT scans of 112 randomly selected acetabular fractures in patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center between January 1998 and December 2000 were analyzed by an experienced orthopedic trauma surgeon and two experienced emergency radiologists. When available, 3D reformatted images were analyzed as well. The fracture pattern for each acetabular fracture, with respect to column walls and extension beyond the acetabulum, when present, was recorded. Fracture comminution was not a defining characteristic.

RESULTS. Analysis of the 112 acetabular fracture patterns showed that each fracture fell into one of four broad categories. Category 0 included wall fractures only. Category I included acetabular fractures limited to a single (anterior or posterior) column. Category II fractures included those involving both the anterior and posterior columns; category II fractures were further subdivided into those with no fracture extension beyond the acetabulum, those with superior or inferior extension, and those with both superior and inferior extensions beyond the acetabulum. Category III fractures included only the "floating" acetabulum, which is defined as an acetabular fracture in which the acetabulum is separated from the axial skeleton both anteriorly and posteriorly.

CONCLUSION. The axial CT display of acetabular fracture patterns provides a basis for a classification of acetabular fractures that is simple, unambiguous, readily understood by both radiologists and orthopedic surgeons and provides clear direction for both diagnosis and surgical treatment planning. Category and subcategory fracture specificity creates a mechanism for intra- and interdepartmental postoperative assessment of any of the individual acetabular fracture types.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. J. Durkee, J. Jacobson, D. Jamadar, M. A. Karunakar, Y. Morag, and C. Hayes Classification of Common Acetabular Fractures: Radiographic and CT Appearances Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2006; 187(4): 915 - 925. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Olson and J. H. Harris Jr. CT-Based Acetabular Fracture Classification Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2005; 185(1): 277 - 280. [Full Text] [PDF]