A review of acetabular fracture patterns, etiologies, and management in Jordan
==============================================================================

* Fadi M. AlRousan
* Ahmad K. Almigdad
* Murad N. Jwinate
* Moh’dkheir A. Aolymate
* Fahed Y. Alsarhan
* Omar M. Al-Qudah

## Abstract

**Objectives:** To review the epidemiology of acetabular fractures in Jordan and to provide a base to advance high-level clinical research in the future.

**Methods:** A total of 141 acetabular fractures admitted to King Hussein Medical City, Amman, Jordan, from July 2018 to December 2022 were reviewed retrospectively. Fractures were classified according to Judet and Letournel and were analyzed regarding age, gender, the cause of injury, fracture classification, mode of treatment, and associated nerve and other body part injuries.

**Results:** Males represented 84.4% of patients. The mean age was 42.52 (±17.655) years, and the age group from 20 to 39 represented 54.6% of patients. Road traffic accidents caused 56.7% of injuries, and 53.9% had other accompanying injuries. Posterior wall fractures were the most common (37.6%) patterns, and femoral head dislocation was reported in 28.4%. Posttraumatic and iatrogenic sciatic nerve injuries were reported in 7% of patients. The mean time from admission to surgery was 7.62 (±7.915) days; 66% of patients received surgical treatment, and 83.9% had a satisfactory reduction.

**Conclusion:** Acetabular fractures are uncommon injuries, with road traffic accidents being the most common cause of injury. Posterior wall fracture was the most frequent pattern; most patients were males. Our results are comparable to the literature. However, we recommend future studies to measure the outcome of acetabular fracture management.

Keywords:
*   acetabulum
*   fracture
*   epidemiology
*   Jordan

**A**cetabular fractures are uncommon injuries. However, it has bimodal distribution where young patients sustained high-energy injuries, and road traffic accidents (RTA) are cited as the most common cause of injury. The other peak occurs in elderly patients who sustained low-energy fragility fractures.1-3 Acetabular fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality and pose a challenge in orthopedic injuries because they require special expertise to treat.4 

The acetabular fractures are affected by many factors, such as the vector of injury force, the position of the femoral head, and bone quality, leading to different fracture patterns explained by Judet and Letournel.5 Non-displaced fractures are treated conservatively, while displaced acetabular fractures require open anatomical reduction and rigid internal fixation to reduce the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis.

It has been shown that the quality of the reduction of the articular surface is associated with improved clinical results and a decrease in the development of arthritis.6,7 Letournel described arthritis rates of 5.4% in anatomically reduced patterns but jumping to 30.7% when the reduction is imperfect.5 

Many epidemiological studies on acetabular fractures have been published overseas; however, in Jordan, such studies are limited; therefore, we conduct this study to understand its epidemiology to provide a base to advance high-level clinical research.

## Methods

This study reviewed the clinical and radiological records of all acetabular fractures admitted to the Royal Rehabilitation Center (RRC) at King Hussein Medical City (KHMC), Amman, Jordan, between July 2018 and December 2022. The KHMC is a medical compound affiliated with Jordanian Royal Medical Services, which has an extensive network of hospitals in different regions throughout Jordan. RRC is a tertiary hospital specializing in orthopedic and plastic surgery, covering military-insured individuals and their families and cases referred from all healthcare hospitals in Jordan.

This study includes all acetabular fractures admitted primarily or referred from other military hospitals across Jordan. Patients readmitted for reoperation and infection were excluded. Sociodemographic data were extracted from patients’ records, and their radiographs were reviewed using Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) to analyze fracture locations and patterns.

Fractures were analyzed regarding age, gender, the cause of injury, fracture classification, mode of treatment, and associated nerve and other body part injuries. Age groups are ≤19 years, 20 -39 years, 40-64 years, and ≥ 65 years. Fractures were classified according to Judet and Letournel, which classify acetabular fractures into five primaries and five associated patterns. In surgically treated fractures, the satisfactory reduction was considered if postoperative displacement was less than 2 mm.

The Royal Medical Services Human Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval (Approval No. 13/2022), and the study was conducted according to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration.

### Statistical analysis

Continuously measured variables were described using the mean and standard deviation, while categorically measured variables were described using frequency and percentages. To assess the correlations between categorically measured variables, the chi-squared test of independence was used. To assess statistical mean differences in metric variables across levels of more than 2 categorical measured variables, the One-way ANOVA test was used. The data was analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). The level of alpha significance was set at 0.050.

## Results

The mean age of 141 admitted patients with acetabular fractures was 42.52 (±17.655) years. Males represented the majority of the sample, with a percentage of 84.4%. Most patients (85.1%) were aged 20-64. Road traffic accidents was responsible for 56.7% of injuries, followed by a fall (42.6%). The associated hip dislocation was detected in 28.4%. More than half of the patients (53.9%) had concomitant other body injuries. Sciatic nerve injuries were detected in 7% of the patients; half were secondary to the injury itself, and the other half were iatrogenic in surgically treated individuals. Two-thirds of fractures were treated surgically, the mean time from admission to surgery was 7.62 (±7.915) days, and one-third received conservative treatment. However, 2 patients were treated with a primary hip replacement, see Table 1.

View this table:
[Table 1](http://smj.org.sa/content/44/6/607/T1)

Table 1 
- Acetabular fracture distribution (N=141).

Table 2 demonstrates the frequency of each fracture type; posterior wall fractures were the most common (37.6%) patterns, followed by the anterior column (14.2%), and both columns (12.8%).

View this table:
[Table 2](http://smj.org.sa/content/44/6/607/T2)

Table 2 
- Acetabular fracture patterns frequency (N=141).

On comparing different patterns of acetabular fracture with variables, there was no significant correlation with age, gender, extremity, associated sciatic nerve injury, and other body part injuries. However, a significant correlation was found with the fracture patterns and injury mechanism, associated hip dislocation, and received treatment, Table 3.

View this table:
[Table 2](http://smj.org.sa/content/44/6/607/T3)

Table 2 
- Bivariate comparison between acetabular fracture patterns and others variables.

Road traffic accidents were more likely to cause posterior wall, posterior column, and transverse fractures. While falls were more likely to cause anterior wall, anterior column, and associated both columns fractures, see Figure 1. Hip dislocation mostly occurs with posterior wall and posterior column fractures. However, posterior wall and column, anterior column, T type, and transverse fractures were most likely to receive surgical fixation, while anterior wall fractures were more likely to receive conservative treatment.

![Figure 1](http://smj.org.sa/https://smj.org.sa/content/smj/44/6/607/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://smj.org.sa/content/44/6/607/F1)

Figure 1 
- Comparison of fracture patterns with rroad traffic accident (RTA) and falls. Key: AC: anterior column, AC+PH: anterior column + posterior hemitransverse, AW: anterior wall, B: associated bothcolumn, PC: posterior column, PC+ PW: posterior column + posterior wall, PW: posterior wall, T: transverse, T+PW: pransverse + posterior wall

## Discussion

Epidemiological fracture studies are lacking in Jordan; thus, this study reviewed all acetabular fractures in a tertiary hospital in Amman, the capital of Jordan. King Hussein Medical City (KHMC) is a referral center for all Jordan district military and other healthcare hospitals. Therefore, studies from such centers are representative of Jordan.

Almigdad et al8 reviewed all admitted fractures to KHMC over 3.5 years, out of 3387 fractures; pelvic fractures represented 4.6% of all fractures. However, no specific details on acetabular fractures. Accordingly, this study aims to improve our understanding of the patterns, etiologies, and management of acetabular fractures.

Several studies have shown that traffic accidents are the most common cause of acetabular fractures.9,10 However, the incidence and severity of acetabular fractures are reduced with the introduction of seat belts.11,12 In our study, RTA caused 56.7% of injuries, which is higher than a regional study from Qatar,13 it accounted for 49.5% of causes, but close to a study from Singapore14 where RTA was responsible for approximately 53.8%. Falls accounted for 42.6%. However, grouping the falls mechanism into one category makes it difficult to identify the exact mechanism of the injury and establish future preventive measures accordingly.

The mean age for patients in our study was equivalent to other studies while there was a lower proportion of women compared to the international studies contributed to the fact that most fractures caused by RTA and males are more involved with RTA.9,13,14 While the female proportion is higher than the regional studies from Qatar, which is attributed to the fact that the majority of the workforce in Qatar from men.13 

Fractures of the posterior wall were the most common fractures; the high frequency of the posterior wall is explained by the high frequency of RTA, resulting in dashboard injuries. Our results are comparable to those published in the literature.9,15 

Acetabular fractures are usually associated with other body part injuries secondary to the high-energy injury mechanism; in our study, it was 53.9%. However, this is lower than reported in the literature, which exceeds 75% of patients.9,13,14 Our study lacks a description of injury mechanisms and categorizes them into broad categories due to insufficient proper documentation. Therefore, this obscures a detailed analysis of injury mechanisms and formulation of preventive measures.

Acetabular fractures are associated with femoral head dislocation in less than a third of cases, particularly with a posterior wall fracture.16 In our study, 28.4% of fractures were associated with a femoral head dislocation. In motor vehicle collisions, injury patterns vary depending on the side of the impact. Frontal collisions can cause knee, thigh, and hip injuries. However, the position of the femur, whether adducted or abducted, affects the force vector and determines the pattern of the acetabular fracture and associated hip dislocation.17,18 Acetabular fractures with associated hip dislocation have poorer long-term functional outcomes with higher complication rates and late total hip arthroplasty (THA) conversion than acetabular fractures without dislocation.16 

Stavrakakis et al19 carried out a meta-analysis of the incidence and outcomes of sciatic nerve injury after acetabular fractures; they reported that the incidence of posttraumatic sciatic nerve palsy was 5.1% and that of iatrogenic palsy was 1.4%. Due to the unsatisfactory outcomes of sciatic nerve grafting, they suggested a “wait and see” approach in cases of a contused but anatomically intact sciatic nerve. The incidence of sciatic nerve palsy in our study was 3.5% due to trauma and 3.5% due to iatrogenic cause. A higher Abbreviated Injury Scale, posterior column fracture, and posterior hip dislocation were associated with an inferior prognosis for sciatic nerve palsy.20 

Two-thirds of our patients received surgical fixation. Posterior wall and column fractures, anterior column, T-type, and transverse fractures were more likely to be fixed surgically, while anterior wall fractures were more likely to be treated conservatively. The reduction was satisfactory if the postoperative displacement was less than 2 mm and was seen in 83.9% of surgically treated fractures. The most important parameters affecting the prognosis of acetabular fractures are the type of fracture, the operating time, and the reduction quality. However, the length of time between trauma and surgery indirectly affects outcomes. Avascular necrosis, heterotopic ossification, and arthritis can negatively affect long-term outcomes.21 

Waiting more than ten days from injury to surgery leads to reduction difficulties, while delays of more than three weeks lead to reduction and stabilization problems due to bone resorption.22 The waiting time from injury to surgery in our study was 7.62 (±7.915) days. However, the longer delay time was secondary to the patient’s comorbidities and late referral from other hospitals. However, we did not measure outcomes in our study. Therefore, we could not compare the impact of delay time and other parameters on the prognosis. Early surgeries are associated with a smaller incision, less soft tissue dissection, and more satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes.23 

Primary THA is recommended for elderly patients with significant osteopenia and comminution, as well as those with preexisting hip arthritis. Arthroplasty can be performed early in combination with fracture fixation with an anti-protrusion cage and bone grafting for acetabular fractures; or it can be delayed after the fracture healing. Nevertheless, patients older than 60 have approximately a 30% late conversion rate to THA after acetabular fractures. However, secondary THA after acetabular fixation is a challenging technique due to adhesions and frequent misalignment of the acetabulum; THA is associated with a higher risk of infection, a tendency to develop para-articular ossification and a higher risk of premature component loosening than the standard procedure.24-27 

### Study limitations

Our data were extracted from a single center and may have limited the generalizability of our results. The retrospective design and the lack of details on the mechanism of injury due to inadequate documentation. Also, the exclusion of patients who died from injuries. The lack of a surgical approach and the outcomes of the treatments and complications are limitations of this study.

In conclusion, there are insufficient studies on the epidemiology, injury pattern, and treatment of acetabular fractures in Jordan, and even regional studies are scarce. In our study, road traffic accidents were the most prevalent cause of acetabular fractures, and a posterior wall fracture was the most common fracture pattern. More than half of the cases are associated with injuries to other regions of the body, and both traumatic and iatrogenic sciatic nerve palsy account for 3.5% of the cases. This study does not contain any outcome data. Therefore, we recommend future studies to measure the outcome and to improve the documentation in the archive system.

## Acknowledgment

*The authors gratefully acknowledge American Manuscript Editors ([www.americanmanuscripteditors.com](https://www.americanmanuscripteditors.com)) for the English language editing.* 

## Footnotes

*   **Disclosure.** Authors have no conflict of interests, and the work was not supported or funded by any drug company.

*   Received December 25, 2022.
*   Accepted May 25, 2023.


*   Copyright: © Saudi Medical Journal

This is an Open Access journal and articles published are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC). Readers may copy, distribute, and display the work for non-commercial purposes with the proper citation of the original work.

## References

1.  1. Grotz MR , Allami MK , Harwood P , Pape HC , Krettek C , Giannoudis PV.  Open pelvic fractures: epidemiology, current concepts of management and outcome. Injury 2005; 36: 1–13.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.injury.2004.05.029&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15589906&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226446000001&link_type=ISI) 

2.  2. Papakostidis C , Giannoudis PV.  Pelvic ring injuries with haemodynamic instability: efficacy of pelvic packing, a systematic review. Injury 2009; 40: S53–S561.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.injury.2009.10.037&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19895954&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

3.  3. Butterwick D , Papp S , Gofton W , Liew A , Beaulé PE.  Acetabular fractures in the elderly: evaluation and management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 758–768.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiamJqc2FtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijk3LzkvNzU4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTg6Ii9zbWovNDQvNi82MDcuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

4.  4. Jindal K , Aggarwal S , Kumar P , Kumar V.  Complications in patients of acetabular fractures and the factors affecting the quality of reduction in surgically treated cases. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2019; 10: 884–889.
    
    

5.  5.1.  
    2.   Elson RA  
    
     Letournel E , Judet R.  Distribution of the clinical series. In:  Elson RA  , editor. Fractures of the acetabulum. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1993. pp. 329–32.
    
    

6.  6. Vipulendran K , Kelly J , Rickman M , Chesser T.  Current concepts: managing acetabular fractures in the elderly population. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2021; 31: 807–816.
    
    

7.  7. Briffa N , Pearce R , Hill AM , Bircher M.  Outcomes of acetabular fracture fixation with ten years’ follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 229–236.
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21282764&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

8.  8. Almigdad A , Alazaydeh S , Alshawish M , Alfukaha H , Mustafa MB , AlRousan F.  An Epidemiological Analysis of Orthopedic Fractures, a Retrospective Single-Center Study from Jordan. Int J Ortho Res 2022; 5: 126–134.
    
    

9.  9. Laird A , Keating JF.  Acetabular fractures: a 16-year prospective epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 969–973.
    
    [CrossRef](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1302/0301-620X.87B7.16017&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15972913&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

10. 10. Giannoudis PV , Grotz MR , Papakostidis C , Dinopoulos H.  Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 2–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15686228&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

11. 11. al-Qahtani S , O’Connor G.  Acetabular fractures before and after the introduction of seatbelt legislation. Can J Surg 1996; 39: 317–320.
    
    

12. 12. Blum J , Beyermann K , Ritter G.  Häufigkeit der Hüftpfannenfrakturen vor und nach Einführung der Gurtanschnallpflicht [Incidence of acetabular fractures before and after introduction of compulsory seatbelt fastening] [German.]. Unfallchirurgie 1991; 17: 274–279.
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1962371&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

13. 13. Ahmed M , Abuodeh Y , Alhammoud A , Salameh M , Hasan K , Ahmed G.  Epidemiology of acetabular fractures in Qatar. Int Orthop 2018; 42: 2211–2217.
    
    

14. 14. Singh A , Min Lim AS , Huh Lau BP , O’Neill G.  Epidemiology of pelvic and acetabular fractures in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. Singapore Med J 2022; 63: 388–393.
    
    

15. 15. Mauffrey C , Hao J , Cuellar DO 3rd , Herbert B , Chen X , Liu B , et al.  The epidemiology and injury patterns of acetabular fractures: are the USA and China comparable? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 3332–3337.
    
    

16. 16. Nicholson JA , Scott CE , Annan J , Ahmed I , Keating JF.  Native hip dislocation at acetabular fracture predicts poor long-term outcome. Injury 2018; 49: 1841–1847.
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

17. 17. Almigdad A , Mustafa A , Alazaydeh S , Alshawish M , Bani Mustafa M , Alfukaha H.  Bone fracture patterns and distributions according to trauma energy. Adv Orthop 2022; 2022: 8695916.
    
    

18. 18. Fadl SA , Sandstrom CK.  Pattern recognition: a mechanism-based approach to injury detection after motor vehicle collisions. Radiographics 2019; 39: 857–876.
    
    

19. 19. Stavrakakis IM , Kritsotakis EI , Giannoudis PV , Kapsetakis P , Dimitriou R , Bastian JD , et al.  Sciatic nerve injury after acetabular fractures: a meta-analysis of incidence and outcomes. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022; 48: 2639–2654.
    
    

20. 20. Liu Z , Fu B , Xu W , Liu F , Dong J , Li L , et al.  Incidence of Traumatic Sciatic Nerve Injury in Association with Acetabular Fracture: A Retrospective Observational Single-Center Study. Int J Gen Med 2022; 15: 7417–7425.
    
    

21. 21. Bilekdemir U , Civan O , Cavit A , Özdemir H.  Acetabular fractures treated surgically: which of the parameters affect prognosis. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2020; 26: 265–273.
    
    

22. 22. Matta JM.  Fractures of the acetabulum: accuracy of reduction and clinical results in patients managed operatively within three weeks after the injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 1632–1645.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiamJqc2FtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3OC8xMS8xNjMyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MTg6Ii9zbWovNDQvNi82MDcuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

23. 23. Johnson EE , Matta JM , Mast JW , Letournel E.  Delayed reconstruction of acetabular fractures 21-120 days following injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 305: 20–30.
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8050229&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

24. 24. Salar N , Bilgen MS , Bilgen ÖF , Ermutlu C , Eken G , Durak K.  Total hip arthroplasty for acetabular fractures: “Early Application”. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2017; 23: 337–342.
    
    

25. 25. Simko P , Braunsteiner T , Vajcziková S.  Vcasná primárna implantácia totálnej protézy pri zlomeninách acetabula u pacientov pokrocilého veku [Early primary total hip arthroplasty for acetabular fractures in elderly patients] [Slovak.]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2006; 73: 275–282.
    
    [PubMed](http://smj.org.sa/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17026887&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsmj%2F44%2F6%2F607.atom) 

26. 26. Milenkovic S , Mitkovic M , Mitkovic M , Stojiljković P.  Total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture surgery. Int Orthop. 2021; 45: 871–876.
    
    

27. 27. Glowalla C , Hungerer S , Stuby FM.  Techniken und Ergebnisse der primären Totalendoprothese bei geriatrischer Acetabulumfraktur [Techniques and results of primary hip arthroplasty in geriatric acetabular fractures] [German.]. Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb). 2022; 125: 924–935.