We use cookies to give you the best experience on our website. To find out more about how we use cookies and how to change your settings, see our Privacy Policy.

Accept

Fractures of the transverse processes of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae in patients with pelvic ring injuries

indicator of biomechanical instability but not shock

    Aims

    This study aimed to analyze the correlation between transverse process (TP) fractures of the fourth (L4) and fifth (L5) lumbar vertebrae and biomechanical and haemodynamic stability in patients with a pelvic ring injury, since previous data are inconsistent.

    Patients and Methods

    The study is a retrospective matched-pair analysis of patients with a pelvic fracture according to the modified Tile AO Müller and the Young and Burgess classification who presented to a level 1 trauma centre between January 2005 and December 2014.

    Results

    A total of 728 patients with pelvic ring injuries were included, of whom 183 (25.1%) had a biomechanically unstable pelvic fracture. Of these patients, 84 (45.9%) had a fracture of a TP of L4 and/or L5. A total of 73 patients (13.4%) with a stable pelvic ring injury (p < 0.001) had a fracture of a TP. Patients with a fracture of a TP of L4 and/or L5 had a 5.5-fold risk (odds ratio (OR)) of having a biomechanically unstable pelvic injury. TP fractures (OR 1.6, p = 0.2) could not be confirmed as an independent predictor of haemodynamic instability.

    Conclusion

    This is the first study that has demonstrated a positive correlation between a TP fracture of L4 and/or L5 and a biomechanically unstable pelvic ring injury. The presence of transverse process fractures of L4 and/or L5 indicates increased severity of pelvic injury and therefore can help in the planning of emergency treatment.

    Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1214–19.

    References

    • 1 Gunterberg B , Romanus B , Stener B. Pelvic strength after major amputation of the sacrum. An experimental study. Acta Orthop Scand 1976;47:635–642. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2 Gabbe BJ , de Steiger R , Esser M, et al. . Predictors of mortality following severe pelvic ring fracture: results of a population-based study. Injury 2011;42:985–991. Crossref, Medline, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 3 Schulman JE , O’Toole RV , Castillo RC, et al. . Pelvic ring fractures are an independent risk factor for death after blunt trauma. J Trauma 2010;68:930–934. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4 Pohlemann T , Tscherne H , Baumgärtel F, et al. . Pelvic fractures: epidemiology, therapy and long-term outcome. Overview of the multicenter study of the Pelvis Study Group. Unfallchirurg 1996;99:160-167. (in German):. ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 5 Chmelová J , Džupa V , Procházka B , Skála-Rosenbaum J , Báča V. Fractures of the L5 transverse process in pelvic ring injury. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2011;78:46-48. (in Czech). ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 6 Starks I , Frost A , Wall P , Lim J. Is a fracture of the transverse process of L5 a predictor of pelvic fracture instability? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2011;93-B:967–969. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 7 Kenawey M , Krettek C , Addosooki A , Salama W , Liodakis E. Unstable paediatric pelvic injuries: the patho-anatomical patterns of pelvic ring failure and the role of avulsion of the iliac apophysis. Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:696–704. Link, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 8 Nasef H , Elhessy A , Abushaban F , Alhammoud A. Pelvic fracture instability-associated L5 transverse process fracture, fact or myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2017. (Epub ahead of print) PMID: 29218648. MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9 No authors listed. World Health Organization International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems . Tenth revision, second ed. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004. Google Scholar
    • 10 Pennal GF , Tile M , Waddell JP , Garside H. Pelvic disruption: assessment and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;151:12–21. Google Scholar
    • 11 Tile M. Acute pelvic fractures: I. Causation and classification. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1996;4:143–151. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12 Müller EComprehensive Classification of Pelvis and Acetabulum Fractures. Bern, Switzerland: Maurice E. Müller Foundation, 1995. Google Scholar
    • 13 Burgess AR , Eastridge BJ , Young JW, et al. . Pelvic ring disruptions: effective classification system and treatment protocols. J Trauma 1990;30:848–856. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14 Gennarelli TA , Wodzin E, et al. Abbreviated injury scale 2005: update 2008 . Barrington: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2008. Google Scholar
    • 15 Baker SP , O'Neill B , Haddon W Jr , Long WB. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 1974;14:187–196. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16 Mutschler M , Nienaber U , Münzberg M, et al. . The Shock Index revisited - a fast guide to transfusion requirement? A retrospective analysis on 21,853 patients derived from the TraumaRegister DGU. Crit Care 2013;17:R172. Crossref, Medline, ISIGoogle Scholar
    • 17 Giannoudis PV , Grotz MR , Tzioupis C, et al. . Prevalence of pelvic fractures, associated injuries, and mortality: the United Kingdom perspective. J Trauma 2007;63:875–883. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18 Holstein JH , Culemann U , Pohlemann T. , Working Group Mortality in Pelvic Fracture Patients. What are predictors of mortality in patients with pelvic fractures? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:2090–2097. Crossref, Medline, ISIGoogle Scholar