Suppr超能文献

髓内钉固定与钢板螺丝钉固定治疗掌骨远端关节外骨折的比较

Comparison of intramedullary nailing versus plate-screw fixation of extra-articular metacarpal fractures.

作者信息

Ozer Kagan, Gillani Syed, Williams Allison, Peterson Steven L, Morgan Steven

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, Denver Health Medical Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA.

出版信息

J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Dec;33(10):1724-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.07.011.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation of metacarpal fractures with those of plate-screw (PS) fixation.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2006, we treated 52 consecutive closed, displaced, extra-articular metacarpal fractures operatively using 1 of 2 fixation methods: IMN or PS. Patient characteristics, mechanism of injury, pattern of fracture, and preoperative radiographic parameters were similar in both groups. The outcome measures were collected and analyzed:total active motion of the digit and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score and radiographic parameters.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients received IMN fixation and 14 patients received PS fixation. Mean follow-up time was 18 weeks in the IMN group and 19 weeks in the PS group. The mean and median total active motion were 237 degrees and 250 degrees for the IMN group, 228 degrees and 248 degrees for the PS group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 9.47 in the IMN group and 8.07 in the PS group. The association between hardware type and fracture location (middle or distal third of metacarpal) was not statistically significant. Time to radiographic healing also did not reach statistical significance between groups. Operative time was significantly shorter with use of the metacarpal nail. Five patients in the IMN group displayed loss of reduction; no failure was observed in the PS group.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes using either technique. Although operative time was shorter in the IMN group than in the PS group, the incidences of loss of reduction, penetration to the metacarpal-phalangeal joint, and secondary surgeries for hardware removal in the operating room were much higher in the IMN group.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

摘要

目的

比较掌骨骨折髓内钉(IMN)固定与钢板螺钉(PS)固定的临床和影像学结果。

方法

2004年至2006年期间,我们采用两种固定方法之一(IMN或PS)对52例连续的闭合性、移位性、关节外掌骨骨折进行了手术治疗。两组患者的特征、损伤机制、骨折类型和术前影像学参数相似。收集并分析了结果指标:手指总主动活动度、手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍评分以及影像学参数。

结果

38例患者接受IMN固定,14例患者接受PS固定。IMN组平均随访时间为18周,PS组为19周。IMN组总主动活动度的均值和中位数分别为237°和250°,PS组为228°和248°,两组间无统计学显著差异。IMN组手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍评分的均值为9.47,PS组为8.07。内固定类型与骨折部位(掌骨中或远三分之一)之间的关联无统计学意义。两组间影像学愈合时间也未达到统计学显著性。使用掌骨髓内钉时手术时间明显更短。IMN组有5例出现复位丢失;PS组未观察到失败病例。

结论

两种技术在临床结果上无显著差异。虽然IMN组的手术时间比PS组短,但IMN组复位丢失、穿入掌指关节以及在手术室进行内固定取出二次手术的发生率要高得多。

研究类型/证据水平:治疗性III级。

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