Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction Sacral fractures are complex and heterogeneous injuries that often include involvement of the lumbar spine and/or pelvis. Due to their complex nature, no comprehensive classification system has been accepted. Material and Methods The AOSpine Trauma Knowledge Forum partnered with orthopaedic traumatologists from AOTrauma to develop a straightforward, hierarchical classification system for sacral fractures. The classification was developed via a consensus process of clinical experts, and, prior to finalizing the classification system, a survey was sent to all members of AOSpine and AOTrauma asking for their input on key parts of the classification. Results The new AOSpine Sacral Classification is a hierarchical classification that follows the same structure as the subaxial and thoracolumbar classifications. First injuries are broadly divided into three types: Type A—Lower Sacro-coccygeal Injuries; Type B—Posterior Pelvic Injuries and Type C—Spino-Pelvic Injuries. Type A injuries have no impact on posterior pelvic or spinopelvic instability, however higher grade injuries may be associated with neurologic injuries. Type A injuries are divided into three subtypes; A1—Coccygeal or compression injuries as well as ligamentous avulsion fractures; A2—Non-displaced transverse fractures below the Sacroiliac (SI) joint, and A3—Displaced transverse fractures below the SI joint. Type B injuries are unilateral longitudinal sacral fractures in which the ipsilateral superior S1 facet is not discontinuous with medial portion of the sacrum. These injuries primarily impact posterior pelvic stability and have minimal impact on spino-pelvic stability. Type B injuries are divided into three subtypes based on the likelihood of neurologic injury, and while this is similar to the Denis classification, because B-type injuries exclude fractures with a transverse component, there is little risk of a neurologic injury with an injury medial to the foramen. The three sub-types of B injuries are: B1—Longitudinal fracture medial to the foramen; B2—Longitudinal fracture lateral to the foramen and B3—Longitudinal injury thought the foramen. Type C injuries are Injuries that result in spino-pelvic instability. They are divided into four subtypes: C0—Non displaced sacral U fracture (commonly seen in low energy insufficiency fractures); C1—Any unilateral B-subtype where the ipsilateral superior S1 facet is discontinuous with the medial portion of the sacrum; C2—Bilateral complete B type fracture without a transverse component, and C3—Displaced sacral U type fracture. In addition to the fracture morphology, the new classification also formally considers the neurologic status of the patient: Nx—The patient cannot be examined; N0—No neurological deficits; N1—Transient neurological injury; N2—Nerve root injury and N3—Cauda Equina Syndrome. Lastly there are four patient specific modifiers that may alter the treatment of these fractures: M1—Significant soft tissue injury; M2—Metabolic bone disease; M3—High-energy injury that may be associat...

Patients: Skeletally mature patients younger than 50 years of age with 492 femoral neck fractures treated between 2005 and 2017.Intervention: Operative repair of femoral neck fracture. Main Outcome Measurements:The association between TE (malreduction and deviation from optimal technique) and treatment failure (fixation failure, nonunion, malunion, osteonecrosis, malunion, and revision surgery) were examined using logistic regression analysis.Results: Overall, a TE was observed in 50% (n = 245/492) of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in young patients. Two or more TEs were observed in 10% of displaced fractures. Treatment failure in displaced fractures occurred in 27% of cases without a TE, 56% of cases with 1 TE, and 86% of cases with 2 or more TEs. TEs were encountered less frequently in treatment of nondisplaced fractures compared with displaced fractures (39% vs. 53%, P , 0.001). Although TE(s) in nondisplaced fractures increased the risk of treatment failure and/or major reconstructive surgery (22% vs. 9%, P , 0.001), they were less frequently associated with treatment failure when compared with displaced fractures with a TE (22% vs. 69% P , 0.001).Conclusions: TEs were found in half of all femoral neck fractures in young adults undergoing operative repair. Both the occurrence and number of TEs were associated with an increased risk for failure of treatment. Preoperative planning for thoughtful and well-executed reduction and fixation techniques should lead to improved outcomes for young patients with femoral neck fractures. This study should also highlight the need for educational forums to address this subject.

No abstract