Abstract
PURPOSE: The prognosis of total hip replacement (THR) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus THR following non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures is unclear. Few studies have been conducted in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to perform an assessment and compare the functional outcomes for study subjects in the ORIF and non-ORIF groups during the follow-up period compared to baseline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This longitudinal comparative study, which included 40 patients who underwent THR for either posttraumatic arthritis after fixation of an acetabular fracture or arthritis following conservative management of a fracture, was conducted for 60 months. Twenty-four patients had undergone ORIF, and 16 patients had undergone nonoperative/conservative management for acetabular fractures. Following THR, the patients were followed up for monitoring of functional outcomes for the Harris hip score (HHS) and comparison between the ORIF and non-ORIF groups was performed. RESULTS: The HHS showed significant improvement in both ORIF and non-ORIF groups. At the end of the mean follow-up period, no significant variation in scores was observed between the groups, i.e., ORIF group (91.61±6.64) compared to non-ORIF group (85.74±11.56). A significantly higher number of re-interventions were required for medial wall fractures and combined fractures compared to posterior fractures (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: THR resulted in improved functional outcome during follow-up in both the groups; however, the ORIF group was observed to have better functional outcome. Re-intervention was not required for any of the posterior fractures at the end of the mean follow-up period.