Suppr超能文献

股骨近端骨折患者:早期全面治疗还是损伤控制骨科治疗?

Borderline femur fracture patients: early total care or damage control orthopaedics?

作者信息

Nicholas Ben, Toth Laszlo, van Wessem Karlijn, Evans Julie, Enninghorst Natalie, Balogh Zsolt J

机构信息

Department of Traumatology, John Hunter Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

ANZ J Surg. 2011 Mar;81(3):148-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05582.x. Epub 2010 Dec 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) favours damage control orthopaedics (DCO) over early total care (ETC) in the management of high-energy femoral shaft fracture (FSF) patients with borderline physiology. The purpose of this study was to compare the borderline physiology FSF demographics, management and outcomes of a Level-1 trauma centre, John Hunter Hospital (JHH) with those of the RCT.

METHODS

A 41-month study of the prospective FSF database was performed. FSF patients were categorized according to the Pape system. Stable (JHH-S) and borderline (JHH-BL) patients' demographics, injury severity, methods of treatment and outcomes were compared with the corresponding groups of the RCT (RCT-S and RCT-BL).

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients met the inclusion criteria of which 45 (68%) were in JHH-S and 21 (32%) were in JHH-BL group. In comparison, there were 121 (73%) RCT-S and 44 (28%) RCT-BL patients in the RCT study population. The demographics and injury severity were similar in the borderline groups, while JHH-S patients were less severely injured. DCO was utilized more frequently in the RCT in both the stable group (JHH-S: 2% versus RCT-S: 41%), and the borderline group (JHH-BL: 14% versus RCT-BL: 48%). The outcomes between the JHH-S and RCT-S groups were comparable, except for intensive care unit (ICU) hours (JHH-S: 20 ± 64 versus RCT-S: 165 ± 187, P < 0.0001) and ventilator hours (JHH-S: 13 ± 46 versus RCT-S: 98 ± 120, P < 0.0001). Among borderline patients, JHH-BL had a tendency to show a lower incidence of both acute respiratory distress syndrome (0% versus 14%) and multiple organ failure (4.8% versus 19.6%). JHH-BL patients had sepsis less frequently (4.8% versus 24.5%, P < 0.05), fewer ICU hours (98 ± 129 versus 436 ± 347, P < 0.0001) and fewer ventilator hours (82 ± 119 versus 337 ± 305, P= 0.0005) compared with the RCT-BL.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of S and BL patients, demographics and injury severity (among BL patients) is comparable with the RCT. Our current practice of employing predominantly ETC among S (98%) and BL (86%) patients results in shorter ICU and ventilator days, fewer septic complications and a potentially lower incidence of organ failure than in the RCT which had 57% overall utilization of ETC.

摘要

背景

最近一项随机对照试验(RCT)表明,在处理生理状况临界的高能股骨干骨折(FSF)患者时,损伤控制骨科(DCO)优于早期全面治疗(ETC)。本研究的目的是比较一级创伤中心约翰·亨特医院(JHH)的临界生理状况FSF患者的人口统计学特征、治疗方式及结果与该RCT中的情况。

方法

对前瞻性FSF数据库进行了为期41个月的研究。FSF患者根据帕佩系统进行分类。将稳定型(JHH-S)和临界型(JHH-BL)患者的人口统计学特征、损伤严重程度、治疗方法及结果与RCT中的相应组(RCT-S和RCT-BL)进行比较。

结果

66例患者符合纳入标准,其中45例(68%)在JHH-S组,21例(32%)在JHH-BL组。相比之下,RCT研究人群中有121例(73%)RCT-S患者和44例(28%)RCT-BL患者。临界组的人口统计学特征和损伤严重程度相似,而JHH-S组患者的损伤较轻。在稳定组(JHH-S:2% 对RCT-S:41%)和临界组(JHH-BL:14% 对RCT-BL:48%)中,RCT中DCO的使用频率更高。JHH-S组和RCT-S组的结果具有可比性,但重症监护病房(ICU)住院时长(JHH-S:20±64对RCT-S:165±187,P<0.0001)和呼吸机使用时长(JHH-S:13±46对RCT-S:98±120,P<0.0001)除外。在临界患者中,JHH-BL组急性呼吸窘迫综合征(0%对14%)和多器官功能衰竭(4.8%对19.6%)的发生率有较低趋势。与RCT-BL组相比,JHH-BL组患者发生脓毒症的频率更低(4.8%对24.5%,P<0.05),ICU住院时长更少(98±129对436±347,P<0.0001),呼吸机使用时长也更少(82±119对337±305,P = 0.0005)。

结论

S组和BL组患者的发生率、人口统计学特征及损伤严重程度(BL组患者中)与RCT相当。我们目前在S组(98%)和BL组(86%)患者中主要采用ETC的做法,与RCT相比,导致ICU和呼吸机使用天数更短,脓毒症并发症更少,器官衰竭发生率可能更低,RCT中ETC的总体使用率为57%。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验