Epidemiology of pelvic and acetabular fractures across 12-mo at a level-1 trauma centre

Table 1 Epidemiological characteristics of pelvic and acetabular fractures

Variable	Pelvic ring fracture only, n (%)	Pelvic ring & acetabulum fracture, n (%)	Acetabulum fracture only, n (%)	Iliac wing fracture, n (%)	Sacrum body fracture, n (%)	Spinopelvic dissociation, n (%)	All pelvic & acetabular fractures, n (%)
Age, median [inter-quartile range]	44 [32, 59]	54 [48, 61]	46 [37, 65]	27 [23, 34]	53 [38, 69]	59 [39, 72]	45 [33, 61]
Gender
Male	60 (64)	9 (82)	39 (89)	11 (92)	2 (29)	5 (71)	126 (72)
Female	34 (36)	2 (18)	5 (11)	1 (8)	5 (71)	2 (29)	49 (28)
ITU admission
Yes	40 (43)	6 (55)	15 (34)	4 (33)	3 (43)	7 (100)	75 (43)
No	54 (57)	5 (45)	29 (66)	8 (67)	4 (57)	0 (0)	100 (57)
P&A surgery
Yes	35 (37)	10 (91)	29 (66)	1 (8)	2 (29)	7 (100)	84 (48)
No	59 (63)	1 (9)	15 (34)	11 (92)	5 (71)	0 (0)	91 (52)
Orthopaedic surgeries
2+	12 (13)	3 (27)	10 (23)	1 (8)	0 (0)	3 (43)	29 (17)
1	25 (27)	0 (0)	7 (16)	3 (25)	2 (29)	0 (0)	37 (21)
None	57 (60)	8 (73)	27 (61)	8 (67)	5 (71)	4 (57)	109 (62)
Length of stay, median [inter-quartile range]	14 [6, 28]	28 [20, 43]	10 [5, 26]	3 [1, 6]	14 [8, 26]	23 [16, 65]	13 [6, 28]
30-d mortality
Alive	87 (93)	11 (100)	44 (100)	11 (92)	7 (100)	6 (86)	166 (95)
Dead	7 (7)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (8)	0 (0)	1 (14)	9 (5)

Table 2 Mechanism of pelvic and acetabular fractures

Mechanism	Pelvic ring fracture only, n (%)	Pelvic ring & acetabulum fracture, n (%)	Acetabulum fracture only, n (%)	Iliac wing fracture, n (%)	Sacrum body fracture, n (%)	Spinopelvic dissociation, n (%)	All pelvic & acetabular fractures, n (%)
Fall	40 (43)	4 (36)	17 (39)	7 (58)	7 (100)	5 (71)	80 (46)
Pedestrian vs Vehicle	25 (27)	3 (27)	8 (18)	2 (17)	0 (0)	0 (0)	38 (22)
Vehicle vs Vehicle	12 (13)	3 (27)	8 (18)	1 (8)	0 (0)	1 (14)	25 (14)
Cyclist vs Vehicle	10 (11)	1 (9)	10 (23)	1 (8)	0 (0)	1 (14)	23 (13)
Crush injury	7 (7)	0 (0)	1 (2)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	8 (5)
Gunshot	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (1)
Suicide attempt	17 (18)	1 (9)	2 (5)	2 (17)	2 (29)	3 (43)	27 (15)

Table 3 Associated injuries with pelvic and acetabular fractures

Injury	Pelvic ring fracture only, n (%)	Combined pelvic ring + acetabulum fracture, n (%)	Acetabulum fracture only, n (%)	Iliac wing fracture, n (%)	Sacrum body fracture, n (%)	Spinopelvic dissociation, n (%)	All pelvic & acetabular fractures, n (%)
Head injury	33 (35)	2 (18)	9 (20)	1 (8)	2 (29)	1 (14)	48 (27)
Spine fracture	48 (51)	6 (55)	5 (11)	5 (42)	6 (86)	6 (86)	76 (43)
Abdomen injury	24 (26)	2 (18)	3 (7)	5 (42)	1 (14)	3 (43)	38 (22)
Upper limb fracture	24 (26)	2 (18)	6 (14)	4 (33)	1 (14)	1 (14)	38 (22)
Lower limb fracture	30 (32)	3 (25)	16 (36)	2 (17)	1 (14)	3 (43)	55 (31)
Open P&A injury	5 (5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (25)	0 (0)	0 (0)	8 (5)

Table 4 Comparison of associated injuries between pelvic ring and acetabular fractures

Injury	Pelvic ring fracture only, n (%)	Acetabulum fracture only, n (%)	P value
Head injury	33 (35)	9 (20)	0.11
Spine fracture	48 (51)	5 (11)	< 0.001
Abdomen injury	24 (26)	3 (7)	0.01
Upper limb fracture	24 (26)	6 (14)	0.13
Lower limb fracture	30 (32)	16 (36)	0.7
Open P&A injury	5 (5)	0 (0)	0.18

Table 5 Association between Young-Burgess fracture classification and mechanism of injury

Mechanism	LC, n (%)	APC, n (%)	VS, n (%)	P value
Fall	34 (38)	3 (50)	6 (86)	0.03
Road traffic accident	52 (58)	1 (17)	1 (14)	0.01
Crush injury	4 (4)	2 (33)	0 (0)	0.05

Combined-type (n = 2) omitted from analysis due to insufficient dataset. LC: Lateral compression; APC: Anteroposterior compression; VS: Vertical shear.