Table 2.

Literature reports on surgical dislocation for acetabular fracture

Study	Number of patients	Fracture type	Surgical approach	Additional surgical approach	Followup (months)	Number of anatomical reductions	Mean Merle d’Aubigne’ scores	Avascular necrosis	Heterotopic ossification
Siebenrock et al. [38]	12	5 Transverse + PW; 3 PW; 1 T-type + PW; 1 T-type; 1 transverse; 1 post column + PW	12 Kocher-Langembeck	2 Smith-Petersen 1 Ileoinguinal second win	35	10	Mean 16.8 (4 patients = 18; 2 patients = 15)	0	4
Siebenrock et al. [39]	10	6 Transverse + PW; 3 PW; 1 T-type + PW	10 Kocher-Langembeck	1 Smith-Petersen 1 Ileoinguinal second win	20	8	5 18 points; 4 16–17 points; 1 14 points	0	6
Tannast et al. [45]	60	17 Transverse + PW; 24 PW; 3 T-type; 9 transverse; 3 post column + PW; 1 anterior column + post hemitransverse; 3 both columns	60 Kocher-Langembeck	?	53	50	Using Matta Clinical Score 22 excellent; 14 very good; 8 good; 4 fair; 6 poor	0	20
Naranje et al. [30]	18	6 Transverse + PW; 6 PW; 3 T-type; 3 T-type + PW	18 Kocher-Langembeck	6 Ileoinguinal	At least 26	14	Mean 17.6 (9 patients = 18; 1 patient = 15)	1	15
Current study	32	8 Transverse + PW; 10 T-type; 9 transverse; 4 post column + anterior hemitransverse	31 Kocher-Langembeck		43	20	6 excellent; 14 good; 6 fair; 4 poor	2	7

PW = posterior wall.