LAUSR

Purpose In elderly patients with minimally displaced acetabulum fractures, the patients’ inability to partially weight-bear and the need for early mobilisation may trigger the decision towards a treatment with higher primary stability. The purpose of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPIF) and non-operative treatment in geriatric minimally displaced acetabulum fractures with regard to complications and quality of reduction. Methods Data from the prospective German Pelvic Injury Register collected between 2008 and 2018 were used to evaluate 608 geriatric patients with isolated minimally displaced (≤ 5 mm) acetabulum fractures. In total, 429 received non-operative treatment, 117 ORIF and 62 CRPIF. Demographics, injury severity, fracture pattern, complications and fracture displacement before and after treatment were analysed. Results Both operative methods reduced fracture gap displacement. CRPIF was associated with lower blood loss and shorter operative time compared to ORIF ( p  < 0.001). Hospital stay was 12.9 days in the non-operative group, 16.8 with CRPIF and 23.6 with ORIF ( p  < 0.001). Non-surgical general complications were more likely to occur following ORIF (22.2%) compared to CRPIF (8.1%) and non-operative treatment (8.4%, p  < 0.001). The rate of surgical complications was not different for ORIF and CRPIF ( p  = 0.122) Conclusion Both operative treatments improve fracture displacement and joint congruency in elderly patients with minimally displaced acetabulum fractures. Compared to ORIF, CRPIF achieves similar quality of reduction but is associated with fewer complications, smaller intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative time and shorter length of hospital stay.