Earthquake-related pelvic crush fracture vs. non-earthquake fracture on digital radiography and MDCT: a comparative study

• Autor(a) principal: Chen, Tian-wu
• Data de Publicação: 2011
• Outros Autores: Yang, Zhi-gang, Dong, Zhi-hui, Tang, Si-shi, Chu, Zhi-gang, Shao, Heng
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Clinics
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/19596
• topic: Earthquake; Pelvis; Fracture; Digital radiography; Multidetector row computed tomography

OBJECTIVE: To determine the features of earthquake-related pelvic crush fractures versus non-earthquake fractures with digital radiography and multidetector row computed tomography. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-seven survivors with pelvic crush fractures in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake were entered in our study as the earthquake-related group (139 underwent digital radiography, 28 underwent multidetector row computed tomography); 70 victims with non-earthquake pelvic fractures were enrolled into this study as the non-earthquake group (54 underwent digital radiography, 16 underwent multidetector row computed tomography). Data were reviewed retrospectively between groups, focusing on anatomic distributions, status of pelvic bone fractures, numbers of pelvic bones involved, and classification of pelvic ring fractures according to the Tile classification system. RESULTS: Pelvic fractures occurred more frequently in the pubis in the earthquake-related group than in the non-earthquake group (135/167, 81% vs. 48/70, 69%). In addition, comminuted fractures were more common in the earthquake-related group than in the non-earthquake group (55/167, 33% vs. 10/70, 14%). Multiple fractures were less common in the earthquake-related group than in the non-earthquake group (81/167, 49% vs. 46/70, 66%). Regarding the classification of pelvic ring fractures, Type C predominantly composed of subtype C3 occurred more frequently (64/167, 38% vs. 12/70, 17%), and Type A was less common in the earthquake-related group than in the non-earthquake group (31/167, 19% vs. 23/70, 32%). All differences were statistically significant (p