Pape Hans-Christoph, Hildebrand Frank, Pertschy Stephanie, Zelle Boris, Garapati Rayeed, Grimme Kai, Krettek Christian, Reed R Lawrence
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Germany.
J Trauma. 2002 Sep;53(3):452-61; discussion 461-2. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200209000-00010.
The optimal treatment of major fractures in patients with blunt multiple injuries continues to be discussed. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical course of polytrauma patients treated at a Level I trauma center within the last two decades regarding the effect of changes in the management of their femoral shaft fracture.
In a retrospective cohort study performed at a Level I trauma center, the patient's injuries and clinical outcomes were studied. Adult blunt polytrauma patients were included if a femoral shaft fracture eligible for intramedullary stabilization was stabilized (including external fixation) primarily < 8 hours after primary admission. Patients were separated according to the management strategies for the femur fracture (I degrees intramedullary nailing [I degrees IMN]; I degrees external fixation [I degrees EF]; I degrees plate osteosynthesis [I degrees plate]) followed during a certain time period: (1) early total care (ETC) (January 1, 1981-December 31, 1989) and early (< 24 hours) definitive stabilization; (2) intermediate (INT) (January 1, 1990-December 31, 1992) change in the protocol; or (3) damage control orthopedic surgery (DCO) (January 1, 1993-December 31, 2000), early (< 24 hours) temporary stabilization, and secondary conversion to intramedullary nailing in patients at risk of organ failure.
The patient groups were comparable regarding age, gender distribution, and the mechanism of injury. Primary external fixation was performed significantly more frequent in the INT (23.9%) and DCO (35.6%) groups compared with the ETC group (16.6%) ( = 0.02 ETC vs. DCO). Plating of the femur was almost abolished in the 1990s (DCO, 6.8%; ETC, 23.4%). In the subgroups categorized to I degrees EF (ETC, 41.1 points; INT, 37.1 points; DCO, 39.1 points), the general injury severity was higher in comparison with the I degrees IMN group (ETC, 38.3%; INT, 36.1%; DCO, 35.8%). Thoracic or abdominal injuries accounted for significantly higher numbers of patients submitted to I degrees EF in the INT (13.6%, = 0.03) and DCO (17.3%, = 0.01) groups, compared with the ETC (8.1%) group. A higher incidence of reamed nailing was present in the ETC group compared with the other groups (ETC, 96.1%; INT, 73.7%; DCO, 13.5%). No significant differences in the incidence of local complications were found. The incidence of multiple organ failure decreased significantly from the ETC to the DCO period regardless of the type of treatment of the femoral fracture. Moreover, there was a significantly higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) when I degrees IMN (15.1%) and I degrees EF (9.1%) in the DCO subgroup were compared.
A significant reduction in the incidence of general systemic complications regardless of the type of femur fixation used was found when comparing the time periods of 1981 to 1989 (ETC), 1990 to 1992 (INT), and 1993 to 2000 (DCO). The change in treatment protocols to external fixation and from reamed to unreamed nailing was not associated with an increased rate of local complications (pin-track infections, delayed unions, nonunions). Among other causes for the improved general outcome during the most recent time period (DCO), an increase in the frequency of air rescue, a change from reamed to unreamed nailing, and an increased awareness toward thoracic and abdominal injuries may have played a role. Even during the DCO era, IMN was associated with a higher rate of ARDS than I degrees EF. In view of a lower complication rate despite higher injury severity compared with the ETC period, the introduction of DCO appears to be an adequate alternative for patients at high risk of developing posttraumatic systemic complications such as ARDS and multiple organ failure.
钝性多发伤患者主要骨折的最佳治疗方法仍在讨论中。本研究的目的是调查过去二十年间在一级创伤中心接受治疗的多发伤患者股骨干骨折治疗方式变化的临床过程。
在一级创伤中心进行的一项回顾性队列研究中,对患者的损伤情况和临床结果进行了研究。纳入标准为成年钝性多发伤患者,其符合髓内固定的股骨干骨折在初次入院后8小时内主要采用髓内固定(包括外固定)。根据特定时间段内股骨干骨折的治疗策略(Ⅰ度髓内钉固定[Ⅰ度IMN];Ⅰ度外固定[Ⅰ度EF];Ⅰ度钢板内固定[Ⅰ度钢板])将患者分组:(1)早期全面治疗(ETC)(1981年1月1日至1989年12月31日)并早期(<24小时)进行确定性固定;(2)中期(INT)(1990年1月1日至'1992年12月31日)治疗方案改变;或(3)损伤控制骨科手术(DCO)(1993年1月1日至2000年12月31日),早期(<24小时)进行临时固定,对有器官衰竭风险的患者二期转换为髓内钉固定。
患者组在年龄、性别分布和损伤机制方面具有可比性。与ETC组(16.6%)相比,INT组(23.9%)和DCO组(35.6%)进行初次外固定的频率显著更高(ETC与DCO相比,P = 0.02)。20世纪90年代股骨钢板固定几乎被摒弃(DCO组为6.8%;ETC组为23.4%)。在分类为Ⅰ度EF的亚组中(ETC组为41.1分;INT组为37.1分;DCO组为39.1分),与Ⅰ度IMN组(ETC组为38.3%;INT组为36.1%;DCO组为35.8%)相比,总体损伤严重程度更高。与ETC组(8.1%)相比,INT组(13.6%,P = 0.03)和DCO组(17.3%,P = 0.01)中因胸腹部损伤而接受Ⅰ度EF治疗的患者数量显著更多。与其他组相比,ETC组扩髓髓内钉固定的发生率更高(ETC组为96.1%;INT组为73.7%;DCO组为13.5%)。未发现局部并发症发生率有显著差异。无论股骨干骨折的治疗类型如何,从ETC时期到DCO时期,多器官功能衰竭的发生率显著降低。此外,比较DCO亚组中的Ⅰ度IMN(15.1%)和Ⅰ度EF(9.1%)时,急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的发生率显著更高。
比较1981年至1989年(ETC)、1990年至1992年(INT)和1993年至2000年(DCO)这几个时间段发现,无论采用何种股骨干固定类型,全身并发症的发生率均显著降低。治疗方案改为外固定以及从扩髓改为非扩髓髓内钉固定与局部并发症(针道感染、延迟愈合、不愈合)发生率增加无关。在最近时间段(DCO)总体结果改善的其他原因中,空中救援频率增加、从扩髓改为非扩髓髓内钉固定以及对胸腹部损伤认识的提高可能起到了作用。即使在DCO时代,IMN与ARDS的发生率高于Ⅰ度EF。鉴于与ETC时期相比,损伤严重程度更高但并发症发生率更低,DCO的引入似乎是创伤后有发生全身并发症如ARDS和多器官功能衰竭高风险患者的一种合适替代方法。