Young and Burgess classification of pelvic ring fractures
Updates to Article Attributes
Body
was changed:
The Young and Burgess classification is a modification of the Tile classification 1. It is the recommended 5 and most widely used classification system for pelvic ring fractures.
It takes into account force type, severity, and direction, as well as injury instability.
Three basic mechanistic descriptions are used, each with degrees of severity.
Anteroposterior compression (APC)
- APC I: stable
- pubic diastasis <2.5 cm
- APC II: rotationally unstable, vertically stable
- pubic diastasis >2.5 cm
- disruption and diastasis of the anterior part of the sacroiliac joint, with intact posterior sacroiliac joint ligaments
- APC III: equates to a complete hemipelvis separation (but without vertical displacement); unstable
- pubic diastasis >2.5 cm
- disruption-diastasis of both anterior and posterior sacroiliac joint ligaments with dislocation
Lateral compression (LC)
Most common type.
- LC I: stable
- oblique fracture of pubic rami
- ipsilateral anterior compression fracture of the sacral ala
- LC II: rotationally unstable, vertically stable
- fracture of pubic rami
- posterior fracture with dislocation of the ipsilateral iliac wing (crescent fracture)
- LC III: unstable
- ipsilateral lateral compression (LC)
- contralateral anteroposterior compression (APC)
Vertical shear (VS)
Unstable, associatedMost severe and unstable type with a high association of visceral injuries.
- vertical displacement of hemipelvis, pubic and sacroiliac joint fractures
Combined
Stability depends on the individual components of this injury.
- complex fracture, including a combination of anteroposterior compression (APC), lateral compression (LC), and/or vertical shear (VS)
-<p>The <strong> Young and Burgess classification</strong> is a modification of the <a title="Tile classification" href="/articles/tile-classification">Tile classification</a> <sup>1</sup>. It is the recommended <sup>5</sup> and most widely used classification system for <strong>pelvic ring fractures</strong>.</p><p>It takes into account force type, severity, and direction, as well as injury instability.</p><p>Three basic mechanistic descriptions are used, each with degrees of severity.</p><p><strong>Anteroposterior compression (APC)</strong></p><ul>- +<p>The <strong> Young and Burgess classification</strong> is a modification of the <a href="/articles/tile-classification">Tile classification</a> <sup>1</sup>. It is the recommended <sup>5</sup> and most widely used classification system for <strong>pelvic ring fractures</strong>.</p><p>It takes into account force type, severity, and direction, as well as injury instability.</p><p>Three basic mechanistic descriptions are used, each with degrees of severity.</p><p><strong>Anteroposterior compression (APC)</strong></p><ul>
-</ul><p><strong>Lateral compression (LC)</strong></p><ul>- +</ul><p><strong>Lateral compression (LC)</strong></p><p>Most common type.</p><ul>
-</ul><p><strong>Vertical shear (VS)</strong></p><p>Unstable, associated visceral injuries.</p><ul><li>vertical displacement of hemipelvis, pubic and sacroiliac joint fractures</li></ul><p><strong>Combined</strong></p><p>Stability depends on the individual components of this injury.</p><ul><li>complex fracture, including a combination of anteroposterior compression (APC), lateral compression (LC), and/or vertical shear (VS)</li></ul>- +</ul><p><strong>Vertical shear (VS)</strong></p><p>Most severe and unstable type with a high association of visceral injuries.</p><ul><li>vertical displacement of hemipelvis, pubic and sacroiliac joint fractures</li></ul><p><strong>Combined</strong></p><p>Stability depends on the individual components of this injury.</p><ul><li>complex fracture, including a combination of anteroposterior compression (APC), lateral compression (LC), and/or vertical shear (VS)</li></ul>
References changed:
- 7. Raniga S, Mittal A, Bernstein M, Skalski M, Al-Hadidi A. Multidetector CT in Vascular Injuries Resulting from Pelvic Fractures: A Primer for Diagnostic Radiologists. Radiographics. 2019;39(7):2111-29. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019190062">doi:10.1148/rg.2019190062</a> - <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31697619">Pubmed</a>
Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.