Suppr超能文献

股骨干骨折的钢板固定:切开复位内固定与肌下固定的比较

Plating of femoral shaft fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus submuscular fixation.

作者信息

Zlowodzki Michael, Vogt Dennis, Cole Peter A, Kregor Philip J

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

出版信息

J Trauma. 2007 Nov;63(5):1061-5. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318154c0b4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for femoral shaft fractures is intramedullary nailing. However, there are indications for which plating can be performed either openly or in a submuscular manner.

METHODS

Between June 1996 and May 2002, two fellowship-trained orthopedic trauma surgeons treated 40 acute diaphyseal femoral fractures in 37 patients with use of plating techniques. Traditional open plating with emphasis on preservation of soft tissue integrity was performed exclusively before February 1999 (n = 19). After that time point, in all but one case (n = 21) submuscular plating techniques were used. No bone grafting was used for either group. A comparison of reduction quality, union rates, secondary interventions, and infection rates between traditional open reduction and internal fixation and submuscular fixation was performed (retrospective cohort study/evidence-based medicine (EBM)-level III).

RESULTS

In assessing reduction quality, there were no malreductions in the traditional plating group and six in the submuscular plating group. There was one infection and one nonunion in the open reduction or internal fixation group. One infection was noted in the submuscular group.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2.5% incidence of nonunion and a 5% incidence of infection (2 of 40; both in type III open fractures) were seen in this series of 40 femoral shaft fractures treated with plate application. Although the theoretical advantages of submuscular plating are well established, its utilization in the femoral shaft did not have a clear clinical advantage. In addition, its use appears to be more technically challenging, and is associated with a high rate of suboptimal reductions.

摘要

背景

股骨干骨折的标准治疗方法是髓内钉固定。然而,在某些情况下,可以采用切开或肌下钢板固定。

方法

1996年6月至2002年5月期间,两名接受过专科培训的骨科创伤外科医生对37例患者的40例急性股骨干骨折采用钢板固定技术进行治疗。1999年2月之前仅采用传统切开钢板固定,重点是保留软组织完整性(n = 19)。在该时间点之后,除1例(n = 21)外均采用肌下钢板固定技术。两组均未使用骨移植。对传统切开复位内固定与肌下固定在复位质量、愈合率、二次干预及感染率方面进行了比较(回顾性队列研究/循证医学(EBM)-III级)。

结果

在评估复位质量时,传统钢板固定组无复位不良,肌下钢板固定组有6例。切开复位内固定组有1例感染和1例骨不连。肌下固定组有1例感染。

结论

在这组采用钢板固定治疗的40例股骨干骨折中,骨不连发生率为2.5%,感染发生率为5%(40例中有2例;均为III型开放性骨折)。尽管肌下钢板固定的理论优势已得到充分证实,但其在股骨干中的应用并未显示出明显的临床优势。此外,其应用在技术上似乎更具挑战性,且与复位欠佳的发生率较高相关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验