Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025

Author Spotlight: A Novel 3D-Printed Titanium Implant for Minimally Invasive Treatment of Hip Dysplasia in Young Dogs
Published on: April 19, 2024
Medium-term clinical results in patients with floating hip injuries
Yun Yang1, Chang Zou1, Yue Fang2
1Department of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Insights
This study evaluated a management strategy for floating hip injuries, finding that anatomical reduction of the acetabulum and pelvic ring restoration are crucial for satisfactory hip function. The strategy emphasizes multidisciplinary care and damage control orthopaedics principles for complex cases.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Trauma Management
- Hip Biomechanics
Background:
- Floating hip injuries are complex pelvic trauma requiring effective management strategies.
- Evaluating a standardized approach to floating hip injuries is essential for improving patient outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the effectiveness of a specific management strategy for floating hip injuries.
- To analyze epidemiological data, radiographic findings, clinical outcomes, and complications associated with floating hip injuries.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective study of 28 patients with floating hip injuries treated between January 2014 and December 2019.
- Standardized management strategy applied, with data collected on patient demographics, injury types, surgical interventions, and outcomes.
- Minimum follow-up of 1 year for all included patients.
Main Results:
- Type A floating hip injuries were most common (53.6%), with head and chest trauma frequently associated.
- Femur fracture fixation was prioritized in initial operations; 75% of femoral fractures used intramedullary fixation.
- Satisfactory hip function (Merle d'Aubigne and Postel scale) was achieved in 62% of patients, with anatomical reduction rates of 54% for acetabulum and 70% for pelvic ring.
Conclusions:
- Anatomical reduction of the acetabular surface and pelvic ring restoration are critical for successful floating hip injury management.
- These complex injuries necessitate specialized, multidisciplinary care and adherence to damage control orthopaedics principles.
- While outcomes varied little by injury type, a thorough assessment and tailored surgical plan are paramount due to the lack of standard treatment guidelines.
Background:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of our strategy for managing floating hip injuries.
Methods:
From January 2014 and December 2019, all patients with a floating hip underwent surgical treatment in our hospital were included in the retrospective study, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. All patients were managed according to a standardised strategy. Data on epidemiology, radiography, clinical outcomes and complications were collected and analysed.
Results:
Twenty-eight patients were enrolled, with an average age of 45 years. The mean follow-up was 36.9 months. According to the Liebergall classification, Type A floating hip injuries predominated (n = 15, 53.6%). Head and chest injuries were the most common associated injuries. When multiple operative settings were required, we prioritized the fixation of the femur fracture at the first operation. The mean time from injury to definitive femoral surgery was 6.1 days, with most (75%) femoral fractures treated with intramedullary fixation. More than half (54%) of acetabular fractures were treated with a single surgical approach. Pelvic ring fixation included isolated anterior fixation, isolated posterior fixation, combined anterior and posterior fixation, of which isolated anterior fixation was the most common. Postoperative radiographs suggested that the anatomic reduction rates of acetabulum and pelvic ring fractures were 54% and 70%, respectively. According to grading system of Merle d'Aubigne and Postel, 62% of patients achieved satisfactory hip function. Complications included delayed incision healing (7.1%), deep vein thrombosis (10.7%), heterotopic ossification (10.7%), femoral head avascular necrosis (7.1%), post-traumatic osteoarthritis (14.3%), fracture malunion (n = 2, 7.1%) and nonunion (n = 2, 7.1%). In the patients with complications described above, only two patients underwent resurgery.
Conclusions:
Although there is no difference in clinical outcomes and complications among different types of floating hip injuries, special attention should be paid to anatomical reduction of the acetabular surface and restoration of the pelvic ring. In addition, the severity of such compound injuries often exceeds that of an isolated injury and often requires specialised multidisciplinary management. Because of no standard guidelines for treatment of such injuries, our experience in the management of such a complex case is to fully assess the complexity of the injury and formulate an appropriate surgical plan based on the principles of damage control orthopaedics.
More Related Videos
09:51The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
04:19Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024