Sagi H Claude, Papp Steve
Florida Orthopaedic Institute, Tampa, Florida; and the daggerUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Jul;22(6):373-8. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31817e49ee.
To report on the radiographic and clinical outcome of symphyseal plating techniques, with specific attention to the incidence of implant failure, reoperation secondary to implant complication, and ability to maintain reduction of the pelvic ring.
Retrospective chart and radiographic review.
Level 1 trauma center.
A total of 229 skeletally mature patients with traumatic pelvic disruptions associated with pubic symphysis diastasis requiring open reduction internal fixation.
Symphyseal plating: (1) group THP, a two-hole plate; (2) group MHP, a multi-hole plate (minimum 2 holes/screws on either side of the symphysis). Patients were analyzed with respect to technique of anterior ring fixation and posterior ring injury pattern and fixation.
Retrospective review of charts and radiographs immediately after the index procedure to latest follow-up was performed. Analysis included pelvic ring injury, type of anterior and/or posterior fixation, maintenance of postoperative reduction, rate of implant failure, and need for reoperation secondary to implant complication. Additionally, logistic regression analysis was performed to detect correlation between any other variable (posterior injury pattern, presence or absence of posterior fixation, time to surgery) and failure or malunion. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software.
A total of 92 complete data sets were available for review. There were 51 patients in group THP and 41 patients in group MHP. When comparing the results of the 2 different methods of anterior fixation (THP versus MHP), the rate of fixation failure was greater in group THP (17 of 51; 33%) than group MHP (5 of 41; 12%). This was statistically significant (P = 0.018). When evaluating the presence of a malunion as a result of these 2 treatment methods, there were more present in the THP group (29 of 51; 57%) than in the MHP group (6 of 41; 15%). Again, this was highly statistically significant (P = 0.001). Although the reoperation rate was slightly higher in the THP group (16%) as compared to the MHP group (12%), this was not statistically significant (P = 0.67). Logistic regression analysis did not reveal any other variables to correlate as a risk factor for failure or malunion in this group of patients.
In this group of patients, the two-hole symphyseal plating technique group had a higher implant failure rate and, more importantly, a significantly higher rate of pelvic malunion. On the basis of these findings, we recommend multi-hole plating of unstable pubic symphyseal disruptions.
报告耻骨联合钢板固定技术的影像学和临床结果,特别关注植入物失败的发生率、因植入物并发症而进行再次手术的情况,以及维持骨盆环复位的能力。
回顾性图表和影像学评估。
一级创伤中心。
共有229例骨骼成熟的患者,因耻骨联合分离导致创伤性骨盆骨折,需要切开复位内固定。
耻骨联合钢板固定:(1)THP组,使用双孔钢板;(2)MHP组,使用多孔钢板(耻骨联合两侧至少各有2个孔/螺钉)。根据前环固定技术、后环损伤类型及固定情况对患者进行分析。
对索引手术结束后至最新随访期间的图表和X线片进行回顾性分析。分析内容包括骨盆环损伤情况、前环和/或后环固定类型、术后复位维持情况、植入物失败率以及因植入物并发症而进行再次手术的必要性。此外,进行逻辑回归分析以检测其他变量(后环损伤类型、是否存在后环固定、手术时间)与失败或畸形愈合之间的相关性。使用SPSS软件进行统计分析。
共有92份完整数据集可供分析。THP组有51例患者,MHP组有41例患者。比较两种不同前环固定方法(THP组与MHP组)的结果,THP组的固定失败率(51例中的17例,33%)高于MHP组(41例中的5例,12%)。差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.018)。评估这两种治疗方法导致的畸形愈合情况时,THP组(51例中的29例,57%)比MHP组(41例中的6例,15%)更多。同样,差异具有高度统计学意义(P = 0.001)。虽然THP组的再次手术率(16%)略高于MHP组(12%),但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.67)。逻辑回归分析未发现其他变量与该组患者失败或畸形愈合的风险因素相关。
在该组患者中,双孔耻骨联合钢板固定技术组的植入物失败率更高,更重要的是,骨盆畸形愈合率显著更高。基于这些发现,我们建议对不稳定的耻骨联合分离采用多孔钢板固定。