Z Orthop Unfall
DOI: 10.1055/a-0965-7589
Original Article/Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pelvic Fractures – Part 1: Which Criteria Lead Us to Supplementary MRI Diagnostics?

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Patricia Lang
1  Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Rekonstruktive und Septische Chirurgie, Sporttraumatologie, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Ulm
,
Charlotte Merz
1  Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Rekonstruktive und Septische Chirurgie, Sporttraumatologie, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Ulm
,
Carsten Hackenbroch
2  Klinik für Radiologie und Neuroradiologie, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Ulm
,
Benedikt Friemert
1  Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Rekonstruktive und Septische Chirurgie, Sporttraumatologie, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Ulm
,
Fabian Stuby
3  BG Unfallklinik Murnau
,
Hans-Georg Palm
1  Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Rekonstruktive und Septische Chirurgie, Sporttraumatologie, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Ulm
,
AG Becken III der DGU® › Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 September 2019 (eFirst)

Abstract

Introduction Isolated pelvic fractures are relatively rare with an incidence of 3 – 6% of all fractures, but their incidence in polytraumatized individuals increases to 25%. The S3 guideline Polytrauma gives a clear recommendation for diagnostics by means of pelvic radiography (X-ray) and computed tomography (CT). A recommendation for the diagnosis by means of magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) especially in patients with low energetic/missing trauma does not currently exist. It is unclear on the basis of which criteria the MRI can be indicated in pelvic fractures. The aim of our study was therefore to retrospectively record indications for the indication of MRI in pelvic fractures – with adequate as well as inadequate trauma.

Material and Methods In a retrospective clinical study, a total of 140 patients (median 68 years, range 15 – 97, 75 female, and 66 male) with a pelvic fracture were included in the study over a period of three years. Overall, the trauma mechanism revealed 73 adequate and 67 inadequate fractures. 31/140 patients had undergone MRI of the pelvis in addition to a CT/X-ray scan. The two subgroups “with MRI” and “without MRI” were analyzed with regard to the parameters “sex”, “age”, “adequacy of the trauma”, “fracture localization”, “duration of admission to imaging”, “type of therapy” and “duration to surgery” compared.

Results It was shown that the MRI diagnosis was performed especially in female, elderly patients (81 years, range 19 – 94 years). Patients with inappropriate trauma have received MRI more frequently (74%) than patients with adequate trauma (26%). With regard to fracture localization no differences could be shown. The MRI was performed on a median 4 days after the CT examination. Regarding the decision “conservative” vs. “operationally” our two groups without and with MRT tended to differ not. Patients with MRI were operated on median 2 days later than patients who did not receive MRI.

Conclusions Pelvic fracture MRI should be performed primarily in elderly female patients without adequate trauma. In patients with adequate trauma, MRI is of low value, especially as MRI diagnostics are performed with delay, resulting in later surgery.