SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.8 issue2 author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand



Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google


SA Orthopaedic Journal

On-line version ISSN 2309-8309
Print version ISSN 1681-150X

SA orthop. j. vol.8 n.2 Centurion Jan. 2009




Posterior acetabular wall fracture fixation with a one-third tubular plate



MB NortjeI; GM SibotoII; J WaltersIII

IRegistrar in Orthopaedics. University of Cape Town, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
IIConsultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. University of Cape Town, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
IIIProfessor and Head of Orthopaedics. University of Cape Town, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa





We reviewed the records of 222 patients treated for posterior wall acetabular fractures from 1994 to 2006 at our institution. In 71 of these patients a 3.5 mm one-third tubular, small fragment plate was used instead of a reconstruction plate. The patients were followed up for an average of 17 months clinically and with radiographs. All fractures united. There were only two cases of hardware failure; in one a screw broke with no loss of reduction, and in the other the plate broke in a case with an associated posterior column fracture. The one-third tubular plate is quick and easy to apply to the posterior wall. It can be secured, providing a strong tension buttress that maintains reduction. We recommend this plate as the implant of choice for internal fixation of isolated posterior wall acetabular fractures that do not involve the posterior column. If the posterior column is involved a reconstruction plate must be added.



“Full text available only in PDF format”




1. Judet R, Judet J, Letournel E. Fractures of the acetabulum: Classification and surgical approaches for open reduction: preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1964;46:1615-75.         [ Links ]

2. Tile M, Pennal G. Pelvic disruption: Principles of management. Clin Orth and Related Research 1980 Sept;151: 56-64.         [ Links ]

3. Richter H, et al. The use of spring plates in the internal fixation of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2004;18:179-181.         [ Links ]

4. Letournel E. The treatment of acetabular fractures through the ilioinguinal approach. Clin Orth Related Research 1993 July;292:62-76.         [ Links ]

5. McMaster J, Powell J. Acetabular fractures. Current Orthopaedics 2005;19:140-54.         [ Links ]

6. Keela M, Trentz O. Acute management of pelvic ring fractures. Current Orthopaedics 2005;19:334-44.         [ Links ]

7. Petsatodis G, et al. Surgically treated acetabular fractures via a single posterior approach with a follow-up of 2-10 years. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 2006.         [ Links ]

8. Schopfer A, DiAngelo D, Hearn T, et al. Biomechanical comparison of methods of fixation of isolated osteotomies of the posterior acetabular column. Int Orthop 1994;18:96-101.         [ Links ]

9. Letournel E. Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop 1980;151:81-106.         [ Links ]

10. Thompsen VP, Epstein HC. Traumatic dislocation of the hip. JBJS 1951(33A)746-78.         [ Links ]



Marc Nortje
30 Hampstead Rd



This research has been approved the Health Sciences Faculty Research Ethics Committee (REC REF 072/2008).
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
This paper is the sole, original work of all the authors and is not published elsewhere.

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License