Methods: We interviewed 14 participants about their experience in the assessment and treatment of patients presenting with pubic rami fragility fractures. Data was analyzed using an inductive thematic approach.
Results: The majority of patients presenting with a pubic rami fragility fracture were managed by geriatricians. However, many of the geriatricians were not aware that these fractures have a high association with co-existing sacral fragility fractures. Furthermore, they were not aware of the limitations of standard x-ray imaging, nor of the potential benefits of surgical intervention for sacral fragility fractures. Spinal surgeons recommended that early, more specialist imaging in patients with pubic rami fragility fractures failing to mobilize, would change clinical management, if found to have a coexisting sacral fragility fracture, amenable to surgical intervention.
Conclusions: The awareness, assessment and management of sacral fragility fractures in patients presenting with pubic rami fragility fractures is poor amongst healthcare professionals in geriatric medicine. Spinal surgeons in this study advocate early further imaging and surgical intervention in patients confirmed to have a concomitant sacral fragility fracture who are failing to mobilize.
DESIGN: Single-site, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial.
SETTING: A UK tertiary centre hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥70 years who were ambulating pre-injury requiring hospital admission (within 28 days of injury) with a type 1 lateral compression PFF.
INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group received sacral fracture fixation (cement augmentation±screw fixation) within 7 days of randomisation. Routine preoperative and postoperative care followed each surgical intervention. The control group received usual care consisting of analgesia, and regular input from the medical and therapy team.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The feasibility outcomes were the number of eligible patients, willingness to be randomised, adherence to allocated treatment, retention, data on the completeness and variability of the proposed definitive trial outcome measures, and reported adverse events.
RESULTS: 241 patients were screened. 13 (5.4%) were deemed eligible to participate. Among the eligible participants, nine (69.2%) were willing to participate. Five participants were randomised to the intervention group and four to the control group. The clinicians involved were willing to allow their patients to be randomised and adhere to the allocated treatment. One participant in the intervention group and two participants in the control group received their allocated treatment. All participants were followed up until 12 weeks post-randomisation, and had an additional safety follow-up assessment at 12 months. Overall, the proportion of completeness of outcome measures was at least 75%. No adverse events were directly related to the trial.
CONCLUSIONS: There were significant challenges in recruiting sufficient participants which will need to be addressed prior to a definitive trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16719542.