Is the conservative treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures still up to date? Retrospective clinical observational study in 46 patients.

Background: According to current forecasts, our society will grow older and older, so that the proportion of 6% of the German population from 2017 who were 80 years or older will increase further. The frequency of falls in this patient population lead to a further increase of sacral insufficiency fractures.

Hypothesis: The aim of this study is to evaluate the multimodal interdisciplinary conservative therapy regime for sacral insufficiency fractures in geriatric patients, especially on the basis of mobility and the need for assistance.

Patients And Methods: A cohort of patients, who were treated as inpatients at the Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien in Erlangen with ICD-10 for sacral fractures S32.1 as the main diagnosis, was retrospectively examined. Only newly diagnosed sacral insufficiency fractures were taken into account. Patients were divided into groups based on the factors hospital stay, fracture location on the sacrum, and location of concomitant pelvic ring injury. The Barthel Index, the Tinetti's Mobility Test and the Timed Up&Go Test were recorded.

Results: 46 patients met the inclusion criteria. Using the conservative therapy, improvements were achieved in all patients in terms of need for care, mobility without aids and risk of falling, also patients with an anterior and posterior pelvic ring fracture. Regard a score improvement in the Barthel Index and Tinetti Mobility Test, patients with bilateral sacral insufficiency fracture (n=17, 37.0%) did not differ significantly from patients with unilateral sacral insufficiency fracture (n=22, 47.8%).

Conclusion: In geriatric patients, decisions about therapy should always be made on an individual and interdisciplinary basis. The conservative therapy regimen continues to play an important role in this. The collected tests-consisting of Barthel Index, Tinetti Mobility Test and Timed Up&Go Test-are well suited for further reproducible, objective studies with a larger patient collective.

Level Of Evidence: IV.