Sir,
Having heard the presentation of the data reported by Matta several years
ago, I read Griffin et al's article with interest. The
number of patients in the study is a reflection of the pioneering
dedication of Dr Matta to this labour-intensive and challenging surgery.
Nevertheless, the study would have been enhanced by noting the subsequent
displacement at follow-up compared with initial X-rays, and also the
location of the displacement in reference to the columns, quadrilateral
plate, and posterior wall. Might there not be differences in
clinical outcomes?
Also, the stratification of radiographic displacement
inexplicably leaves out a group for fractures displaced 1-2 mm. If these
fractures were included in the (0-1 mm) group this would result in a
spurious number of 'anatomic' reductions. Conversely, if included in
the 2-3 mm group the number of 'imperfect' results would be larger. While
the conclusion that outcomes are improved with better reduction seems
intuitively obvious, it is not necessarily substantiated by the data as
presented. The degree of femoral head damage which occurs to some extent in
nearly all acetabular fractures was not quantified, rendering the
conclusions of the study in this regard suspect. Finally, while the
extended iliofemoral approach provides a commanding view, it does so at the
expense of the soft tissue with a higher incidence of heterotopic bone and
abductor weakness, as the authors have noted. Probably the most useful
information in the article is that this approach should be avoided wherever possible for less brutalising access to the acetabulum.
H.D. Moehring, MD
UC Davis Medical Center,
Sacramento, California,
USA.