Rothenfluh Esin, Schweizer Andreas, Nagy Ladislav
Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
J Wrist Surg. 2013 Feb;2(1):49-54. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326725.
Background There are various technical variations to consider when performing a corrective osteotomy of a distal radius malunion. We chose two of the more commonly reported techniques and compared the results of volar (palmar) osteotomy and fixation with dorsal osteotomy and fixation. Method Within a continuous cohort of patients who had undergone corrective osteotomy for a malunited Colles fracture, two groups could be identified retrospectively. In 8 patients a dorsal approach was used. A structural trapezoidal graft, subtending the amount of correction, was inserted into the osteotomy gap and stabilization was performed with a thin round-hole mini-fragment plate. In 14 patients a palmar approach and a palmar fixed-angle plate was used for correction of the malunion and for angular stable rigid fixation of the two fragments. The osteotomy gap was loosely filled with nonstructural cancellous bone chips. A retrospective comparison of the two groups was performed to see whether the outcome was affected by the use of either operative technique.The demographics, the preoperative amount of deformity, range of motion, pain, and force were comparable for both groups. All osteotomies healed without loss of correction. After a minimal follow-up of one year, radiographic appearance, objective functional parameters were assessed and subjective data (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH] score and special pain and function questionnaire) obtained. Results These data did not show statistical difference for the two groups except for the amount of final wrist flexion. This parameter was significantly better in patients who had palmar approaches and fixed-angle plates. Conclusion Corrective osteotomies of distal radius malunions can be done in either way. It might result in some better flexion, if performed volarly.
在进行桡骨远端骨折畸形愈合的矫正截骨术时,有多种技术变化需要考虑。我们选择了两种较常报道的技术,并比较了掌侧截骨固定与背侧截骨固定的结果。
在一组连续接受Colles骨折畸形愈合矫正截骨术的患者中,可回顾性地确定两组。8例患者采用背侧入路。将一块支撑矫正量的结构性梯形植骨块插入截骨间隙,并用一块薄的圆孔微型接骨板进行固定。14例患者采用掌侧入路和掌侧角稳定接骨板来矫正畸形愈合,并对两块骨折块进行角稳定坚强固定。截骨间隙用非结构性松质骨碎片松散填充。对两组进行回顾性比较,以观察手术技术的使用是否会影响结果。两组的人口统计学资料、术前畸形程度、活动范围、疼痛和力量均具有可比性。所有截骨均愈合,无矫正丢失。在至少随访一年后,评估影像学表现、客观功能参数,并获取主观数据(手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍[DASH]评分以及特殊疼痛和功能问卷)。
除最终腕关节屈曲量外,两组数据无统计学差异。该参数在采用掌侧入路和角稳定接骨板的患者中明显更好。
桡骨远端骨折畸形愈合的矫正截骨术两种方式均可进行。如果采用掌侧入路,可能会使腕关节屈曲功能更好。