Bacon Stacy, Smith Wade R, Morgan Steven J, Hasenboehler Erik, Philips Giby, Williams Allison, Ziran Bruce H, Stahel Philip F
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Denver Health Medical Centre, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO 80204, USA.
Injury. 2008 Feb;39(2):196-202. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.09.003. Epub 2008 Jan 31.
Intra-articular fractures of the tibial plafond are complex injuries which continue to challenge orthopaedic surgeons in achieving anatomic reduction, while allowing early weight bearing and return to activity. Although a wide range of treatment options has been described for fixation of pilon fractures, the unique characteristic of each injury makes it difficult to advocate a general method of choice. We have attempted to compare a subset of AO/OTA type C pilon fractures treated either by a staged procedure of external fixation and conversion to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus definitive external Ilizarov fixation. Between 1998 and 2004, 42 patients admitted to our level 1 trauma centre underwent either procedure and were followed prospectively. Twenty-eight patients were treated with ORIF and 14 were treated by Ilizarov ring fixator. The outcome measures included time to union, as well as the rates of union, nonunion, malunion and infection. Although the ORIF group had a longer time to heal, the rates of nonunion, malunion and infection were lower compared to the Ilizarov group. However, these differences between the groups were not statistically significant. Thus, based on these results, no clinical recommendation can be made as to which procedure is better and safer for the patient. Future prospective randomised trials are required to determine with more scientific accuracy the optimal treatment strategy for these challenging injuries.
胫骨平台关节内骨折是复杂的损伤,在实现解剖复位的同时允许早期负重和恢复活动,这仍然是骨科医生面临的挑战。尽管已经描述了多种用于固定pilon骨折的治疗选择,但每种损伤的独特特征使得难以主张一种通用的选择方法。我们试图比较一部分AO/OTA C型pilon骨折,分别采用外固定分期手术并转换为切开复位内固定(ORIF)与确定性外固定Ilizarov固定治疗的效果。1998年至2004年期间,42例入住我们一级创伤中心的患者接受了上述两种手术之一,并进行了前瞻性随访。28例患者接受了ORIF治疗,14例患者接受了Ilizarov环形固定器治疗。结果指标包括愈合时间以及愈合率、不愈合率、畸形愈合率和感染率。尽管ORIF组的愈合时间较长,但与Ilizarov组相比,不愈合、畸形愈合和感染率较低。然而,两组之间的这些差异没有统计学意义。因此,基于这些结果,无法就哪种手术对患者更好、更安全提出临床建议。未来需要进行前瞻性随机试验,以更科学准确地确定这些具有挑战性损伤的最佳治疗策略。