To review the treatment and outcomes of paediatric pelvic ring injuries in the UK We performed a retrospective review of all pelvic fracture admissions to an English paediatric major trauma centre (MTC) from 2012 to 2016. A total of 29 patients were admitted with pelvic ring injuries with a mean age of 11 years (4- 16yrs). Road traffic accident was the mechanism in majority (72%), followed by fall from height (24%). Femoral shaft fracture was present in 5 (17%), head injury in 5 (17%), chest injuries in 5 (17%) and bladder injury in one child. 48% patients needed surgical procedures for fractures or associated injuries. We differentiated injuries according to the classification system of Torode and Zeig. 17% were Type A, 3% Type B, 48% Type C and 31% Type D. Almost all (93%) patients were treated conservatively. 51% of patients were allowed to mobilize full weight bearing after a period of bed rest. Non-weight bearing mobilization was recommended for fractures extending into the acetabulum, sacral fractures, unstable fracture patterns or associated fractures (neck of femur, femoral shaft and tibial shaft). Surgical fixation occurred in two patients. Both of these patients had significantly displaced Type D fractures. Only 44% of patients were back to sports at six months.Purpose of study
Methods and results
The Ponseti method has been proven to be the gold standard of treatment for clubfoot. The question however remains about the treatment of atypical and complex feet with this method. The Ponseti technique has been used to treat all clubfeet at the our institution for the past 10 years. We interviewed 70 patients (114 affected feet) ages 5–9 regarding the current state of their clubfoot using the 10 item Disease Specific Instrument (DSI) developed by Roye et al. Of these, 16 patients had a complex foot defined by a transverse medial crease. The DSI scores from all patients were transformed onto a 100 point scale and compared based on overall score as well as functional outcome and satisfaction. There was no significant difference in the overall scores with a mean of 76.43 (sd= 21.1) in patients who did not have a complex deformity compared to a mean of 79.17 (sd= 19.4) in those who did have a complex foot (p=0.644). On the functional subscale the mean scores were 74.07 (sd=27.1) and 89.58 (sd=25.9) for patients who had non-complex and complex feet, respectively (p=0.474). Regarding satisfaction, the non-complex group had a mean score of 79.51 (sd=19.7) compared to the mean of 78.75 (sd=16.7) in the complex group (p=0.888). Primary treatment with the Ponseti method achieves very successful correction of the clubfoot deformity with good outcome scores. Furthermore, even in patients with a complex deformity, the Ponseti method still achieves equally successful outcomes.
It has been postulated that a mild clubfoot does better than a severe clubfoot no matter what treatment course is taken. There have been previous efforts to classify clubfoot. For units worldwide that use the Ponseti Method of clubfoot management, the Pirani scoring system is widely used. This scoring system has previously been shown to predict the number of plasters required to gain correction. Our study aimed to investigate whether the Pirani score gave an indication of longer-term outcome using tibialis anterior tendon transfer as an endpoint. A prospectively collated database was used to identify all patients treated in the Ponseti clinic at the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital between 2002 and 2005 with idiopathic clubfoot who had not received any treatment prior to their referral. Rate of tibialis tendon transfer as well as the patient's presenting Pirani score were noted. Feet were grouped for analytical purposes into a mild clubfoot (Pirani score <4) and a severe clubfoot (Pirani score 4) category depending on initial examination. Clinic records were reviewed retrospectively to identify patients who were poorly compliant at wearing boots and bars and were categorised into having “good” or “bad” compliance with orthosis use.Introduction
Methods
