Management trends and practices in ischial tuberosity avulsion fractures: a cross-sectional study among hip surgeons in the UK, surgical technique and literature review.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1308/rcsann.2025.0008
N A Shaharudin, H A Al Hussainy, O Shannak, G Mundy
{"title":"Management trends and practices in ischial tuberosity avulsion fractures: a cross-sectional study among hip surgeons in the UK, surgical technique and literature review.","authors":"N A Shaharudin, H A Al Hussainy, O Shannak, G Mundy","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2025.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ischial tuberosity avulsion fracture (ITAF) is a rare injury affecting predominantly adolescent athletes yet lacks standardised management protocols. This study aims to investigate the diverse management preferences among hip surgeons regarding ITAF and share our preferred surgical technique and management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a cross-sectional study, 237 British Hip Society members were surveyed regarding various aspects of ITAF management, including preferences for operative versus non-operative approaches, surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitation regimens. Sixty-two surgeons responded, yielding a 26% response rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-six surgeons (58.1%) favoured conservative treatment, while 26 (41.9%) preferred surgery based on the degree of displacement. Among those advocating for surgery, 16 (61.5%) deemed displacement ≥20mm as significant, with 5 (19.2%) considering ≥15mm significant and another 19.2% regarding any displacement as significant. Prone theatre positioning was overwhelmingly preferred by 96.2%, with a majority (65.4%) favouring the transverse gluteal crease approach. Postoperatively, 11.5% preferred immediate full weight bearing, while 88.5% opted for six weeks of non-weight-bearing following surgery. Among conservative management advocates, 29% allowed unrestricted weight-bearing post-injury, 11.3% preferred weight-bearing until further review and 59.7% opted for partial weight-bearing for at least six weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the absence of a consensus on ITAF management. We present our preferred approach through a case analysis involving an ITAF patient treated at our department to enhance understanding of this rare injury and potentially improve management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":" ","pages":"52-57"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12718752/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2025.0008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ischial tuberosity avulsion fracture (ITAF) is a rare injury affecting predominantly adolescent athletes yet lacks standardised management protocols. This study aims to investigate the diverse management preferences among hip surgeons regarding ITAF and share our preferred surgical technique and management.

Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 237 British Hip Society members were surveyed regarding various aspects of ITAF management, including preferences for operative versus non-operative approaches, surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitation regimens. Sixty-two surgeons responded, yielding a 26% response rate.

Results: Thirty-six surgeons (58.1%) favoured conservative treatment, while 26 (41.9%) preferred surgery based on the degree of displacement. Among those advocating for surgery, 16 (61.5%) deemed displacement ≥20mm as significant, with 5 (19.2%) considering ≥15mm significant and another 19.2% regarding any displacement as significant. Prone theatre positioning was overwhelmingly preferred by 96.2%, with a majority (65.4%) favouring the transverse gluteal crease approach. Postoperatively, 11.5% preferred immediate full weight bearing, while 88.5% opted for six weeks of non-weight-bearing following surgery. Among conservative management advocates, 29% allowed unrestricted weight-bearing post-injury, 11.3% preferred weight-bearing until further review and 59.7% opted for partial weight-bearing for at least six weeks.

Conclusions: This study highlights the absence of a consensus on ITAF management. We present our preferred approach through a case analysis involving an ITAF patient treated at our department to enhance understanding of this rare injury and potentially improve management strategies.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
坐骨结节撕脱骨折的治疗趋势和实践:英国髋关节外科医生的横断面研究,手术技术和文献综述。
背景:髂骨结节撕脱性骨折(ITAF)是一种罕见的损伤,主要影响青少年运动员,但缺乏标准化的管理方案。本研究旨在调查髋关节外科医生对ITAF的不同管理偏好,并分享我们的首选手术技术和管理方法:在一项横断面研究中,237 名英国髋关节协会会员接受了有关 ITAF 管理各个方面的调查,包括对手术与非手术方法、手术技术和术后康复方案的偏好。62名外科医生做出了回复,回复率为26%:结果:36 名外科医生(58.1%)倾向于保守治疗,26 名外科医生(41.9%)根据移位程度倾向于手术治疗。在主张手术的医生中,16 位(61.5%)认为移位≥20 毫米为显著移位,5 位(19.2%)认为≥15 毫米为显著移位,另有 19.2% 认为任何移位均为显著移位。96.2%的人首选俯卧位,大多数人(65.4%)选择臀横皱襞入路。术后,11.5%的患者选择立即完全负重,88.5%的患者选择术后六周不负重。在主张保守治疗的患者中,29%的人允许受伤后不受限制地负重,11.3%的人倾向于负重直至进一步复查,59.7%的人选择部分负重至少六周:结论:这项研究表明,目前还没有就ITAF的处理达成共识。我们通过对本科室治疗的一名ITAF患者的病例分析,介绍了我们的首选方法,以加深对这种罕见损伤的了解,并有可能改进管理策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
316
期刊介绍: The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official scholarly research journal of the Royal College of Surgeons and is published eight times a year in January, February, March, April, May, July, September and November. The main aim of the journal is to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery. The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, controversial topics, CORESS feedback and book reviews. The editorial board is composed of experts from all the surgical specialties.
期刊最新文献
Trust, truth and transparency: analysing the references underpinning AI-generated surgical information. Commentary on: Immersive robotic colorectal training in the United Kingdom is safe and efficient. Real-world validation of the cancer dysphagia score for primary care triage of suspected upper gastrointestinal cancer referrals. A sticking point on three-way catheters: preventing inflow blockage by using high-adhesion tape. Gastric bezoar with associated gastrocolic fistula in a patient with learning disabilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1