Marsh J L, Muehling V, Dirschl D, Hurwitz S, Brown T D, Nepola J
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242-1008, USA.
J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Sep;20(8):536-41. doi: 10.1097/01.bot.0000211161.05864.5d.
Assess whether postoperative ankle motion after fixation of a fracture of the tibial plafond, treated with articulated external fixation, leads to a better outcome when compared with similar treatment without postoperative ankle motion.
Multicenter randomized trial.
Three Level I trauma centers.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled and entered into a Web-based database and randomized into 1 of 2 groups. Forty-one patients were evaluated at a 1-year follow-up visit, and 31 were seen at 2 years or longer after injury.
Patients were treated with a hinged external fixator and limited internal fixation of the articular surface. They were divided postoperatively into two groups, 1 of which had a locked hinge and the other had a mobile hinge and a motion protocol.
A general health status questionnaire, the SF-36 (short-form 36); a joint-specific ankle questionnaire, the Ankle Osteoarthritis Score (AOS); and range of motion (ROM) of the ankle joint.
There were no significant differences between the two groups at either follow-up interval in the ankle ROM measurement, the AOS pain and disability scale, or the SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scales.
These results indicate that treatment protocols that use long periods of cross-joint external fixation that immobilizes the ankle as definitive treatment result in similar patient outcomes compared to otherwise identical treatment protocols that incorporate and use an articulated hinge for ankle motion. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because the patient numbers were too small to detect potentially meaningful differences in outcomes and the follow-up was too short to assess for differences in the development of arthrosis.
评估与未进行术后踝关节活动的类似治疗相比,采用关节式外固定治疗胫骨平台骨折后,术后踝关节活动是否能带来更好的治疗效果。
多中心随机试验。
三个一级创伤中心。
患者/参与者:55名患者入组并录入基于网络的数据库,随机分为两组。41名患者在1年随访时接受评估,31名患者在受伤后2年或更长时间接受评估。
患者接受带铰链的外固定器和关节面有限内固定治疗。术后将他们分为两组,一组使用锁定铰链,另一组使用活动铰链并采用活动方案。
一般健康状况问卷SF-36(简明健康调查问卷);特定关节的踝关节问卷,踝关节骨关节炎评分(AOS);以及踝关节活动范围(ROM)。
在两个随访时间点,两组在踝关节ROM测量、AOS疼痛和残疾量表或SF-36身体成分总结(PCS)和精神成分总结(MCS)量表方面均无显著差异。
这些结果表明,与采用关节式铰链进行踝关节活动的相同治疗方案相比,将长时间跨关节外固定使踝关节固定作为最终治疗方法的治疗方案,患者的治疗效果相似。然而,由于患者数量过少,无法检测出可能有意义的结果差异,且随访时间过短,无法评估关节病发展的差异,因此对结果的解释应谨慎。