Objective The treatment methods for posterior wall (PW) in both‐column acetabular fractures are controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare reduction quality, clinical outcomes, and complications of nonfixation for posterior wall fragment and plating via the Kocher–Langenbeck (KL) approach after anterior surgical procedures in both‐column acetabular fractures. Methods Forty‐nine patients with both‐column acetabular fractures associated with PW fixed via iliac fossa and Stoppa approaches from October 2012 to October 2017 were recruited into this study and were divided into two groups: Nonfix group (nonfixation for PW) and KL group (PW plating through the KL approach). Operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, reduction quality, fracture healing, and relevant complications of patients were reviewed. Merle d'Aubigné scores were used for assessing functional outcome. Results The mean blood loss and operation durations were lower in Nonfix group than in KL group (both p < 0.05). The mean hospital stay durations were (18.54 ± 6.42) days and (21.17 ± 7.32) days in groups Nonfix and KL, respectively (p = 0.186). All fractures healed well with no significant difference in union time between the two groups (p = 0.210). The rates of satisfactory reduction were 84.62% (22/26) in Nonfix group and 86.96% (20/23) in KL group (p = 1.000). The mean Merle d'Aubigné scores were 15.62 ± 2.28 in Nonfix group and 16.17 ± 2.19 in KL group (p = 0.388). The complication rates were 7.69% (2/26) in Nonfix group and 34.78% (8/23) in KL group (p = 0.046). Conclusions For both‐column acetabular fractures associated with PW fragment, although fixation of PW was not performed after anterior surgical procedures, satisfactory outcomes could also be obtained. However, nonfixation was a less invasive choice with a lower complication rate.

Background. The aim of the study was to compare the morphological distinctions of the posterior wall (PW) in different complex acetabular fractures using 3D software and fracture mapping technique and ultimately to provide for improved clinical treatment. Methods. One hundred and fourteen patients with complex acetabular fracture associated with PW were recruited. All patients were divided into two groups according to the injury mechanism of the PW: Group A (both-column and PW) and Group B (including posterior column and PW; T shape and PW; and transverse and PW). Fracture mapping was generated on the intra- and extrasurface of a standard template. The radiological parameters including spatial displacement, articular surface area, articular range, marginal impaction, and multifragments of the two groups were compared. Results. The spatial displacement, intra-/extra-articular surface area, and start and end point in Group A were 10.9 mm (IQR, 8.4-15.2), 8.2 ± 2.6  cm2, 17.9 ± 5.3  cm2, 0.8° (IQR, -6.0-16.2), and 107.5° (IQR, 97.2-116.9), respectively. The results in Group B were 30.4 mm (IQR, 16.8-48.7), 4.1 ± 2.0  cm2, 10.6 ± 4.4  cm2, 29.5° (IQR, 19.2-38.0), and 117.5° (IQR, 98.2-127.2), respectively. Marginal impaction was defined by Letournel et al. All the differences between two groups were significant ( P < 0.05 ). The fracture map in Group A showed an “L”-shaped pattern and a “cusp” on the ilium, and the PW was located at 1/5 to 1/4 of the posterosuperior part of the acetabulum. The fracture maps in Group B were scattered and lacked consistency, and the PWs were confined to 1/10 to 1/8 of the posterior acetabulum. Conclusions. Quantitative measurements and fracture mapping represented the differences in morphological characteristics of PWs associated with complex acetabular fractures.

Background: Several primary fracture classification systems (FCSs) have been widely used for intra-articular calcaneal fractures. The purpose of this study was to measure the inter-and intra-observer variations as well as integrality of the Zwipp, Crosby-Fitzgibbons, Sanders, and Eastwood-Atkins classification systems based on more accurate CT scans.Methods: 549 patients with intra-articular calcaneal fractures taken from a database in our level-I trauma centre (3 affiliated hospitals) were included from January 2018 to December 2019. For each case, normative CT (1 mm slices) scans were available.Four different observers reviewed all CT scans two times according to these 4 most prevalent FCSs within a 2-month interval. For these four FCSs, the kappa [κ] coefficient was used to evaluate interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility, and the percentage that can be classified was used to indicate integrality. Results:The κ values were measured for Zwipp (κ= 0.38 interobserver, κ= 0.61 intraobserver), Crosby-Fitzgibbons (κ= 0.48 interobserver, κ= 0.79 intraobserver), Sanders (κ= 0.40 interobserver, κ= 0.57 intraobserver), and Eastwood-Atkins (κ= 0.44 interobserver, κ= 0.72 intraobserver). Furthermore, the integrality were calculated for Zwipp (100 %), Crosby-Fitzgibbons (100 %), Sanders (92 %) as well as Eastwood-Atkins (89.6 %). Conclusion:Compared with previous literatures, CT scanning with higher accuracy can significantly improve intraobserver reproducibility of Zwipp and Eastwood-Atkins FCSs, but it has no positive effect on variability of Sanders FCS and interobserver reliability of Crosby-Fitzgibbons FCS. While in terms of integrality, Zwipp and Crosby-Fitzgibbons FCSs appear to be superior to the other two FCSs.