To analyse and compare long-term functional outcome of combined spino-pelvic injuries to an isolated pelvis and spinal fractures, the outcome of matched 30 patients with combined pelvic and spinal fractures was compared with 32 patients with isolated pelvic fractures and 30 patients with isolated spinal fractures. Functional outcome was measured using the self-report questionnaire EuroQol EQ-5D, a generic outcome tool. The functional outcome was compared with the average UK population scores. The mean age, median ISS and demographic profile were similar in all 3 groups. Neurological injuries were seen in 10 patients in the combined injury group, 5 patients in the pelvic injury group and 3 patients in the spinal fracture group. 1 patient had sexual dysfunction in the combined injury group. The EuroQol EQ-5D descriptive scores for the combined group were 0.67±0.11 (0.71±0.12 for spine fracture, 0.61±0.18 for pelvic fracture) and Valuation scores for the combined injury were 69.6±11.4 (65.1±19.4 for spine fracture, 61.5±21.9 for pelvic fracture), which are p=0.004 and p=0.003 for the combined injury compared to the average UK population. Duration of hospital stay was a mean of 13 days in spine injury group compared to 49 days in the combined injury group. 70% of patients with spinal injuries returned to the same level of employment in a mean duration of 5.3 months with only 10% retired due to injury; compared to 56.6% returned to work in the combined injury group after a mean duration of 12.8 months with 23.3% retired due to injury. Long-term functional outcome is significantly better with isolated spinal injuries compared to pelvic injury or combined injury. There is no significant long-term difference between the combined spino-pelvic group and the isolated pelvic injury group. We feel that the spinal injuries in a patient with coexisting pelvic fracture do not contribute towards the overall functional outcome in those patients

Injury to the sciatic nerve is one of the more serious complications of acetabular fracture and traumatic dislocation of the hip, both in the short and long term. We have reviewed prospectively patients, treated in our unit, for acetabular fractures who had concomitant injury to the sciatic nerve, with the aim of predicting the functional outcome after these injuries.

Of 136 patients who underwent stabilisation of acetabular fractures, there were 27 (19.9%) with neurological injury. At initial presentation, 13 patients had a complete foot-drop, ten had weakness of the foot and four had burning pain and altered sensation over the dorsum of the foot. Serial electromyography (EMG) studies were performed and the degree of functional recovery was monitored using the grading system of the Medical Research Council. In nine patients with a foot-drop, there was evidence of a proximal acetabular (sciatic) and a distal knee (neck of fibula) nerve lesion, the double-crush syndrome.

At the final follow-up, clinical examination and EMG studies showed full recovery in five of the ten patients with initial muscle weakness, and complete resolution in all four patients with sensory symptoms (burning pain and hyperaesthesia). There was improvement of functional capacity (motor and sensory) in two patients who presented initially with complete foot-drop. In the remaining 11 with foot-drop at presentation, including all nine with the double-crush lesion, there was no improvement in function at a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.