Suppr超能文献

闭合性锤状指损伤中,远侧指间关节伸展支具与经皮穿针固定的比较

Comparison of Extension Orthosis Versus Percutaneous Pinning of the Distal Interphalangeal Joint for Closed Mallet Injuries.

作者信息

Renfree Kevin J, Odgers Ryan A, Ivy Cynthia C

机构信息

From the *Department of Orthopedics, †Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and ‡Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ.

出版信息

Ann Plast Surg. 2016 May;76(5):499-503. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000315.

Abstract

We compared a static extension orthosis with percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) for treatment of closed mallet injuries. After receiving counsel about treatment options, 44 patients (25 women and 19 men; mean age, 57 years) freely chose orthosis and 18 patients (5 women and 13 men; mean age, 51 years) chose pinning. Both the extension orthosis and the pin remained in place for 6 weeks; the pin then was removed, and the care in both groups was transitioned to nighttime orthosis use for an additional 6 weeks. The patients in the pin group were allowed to immediately resume unrestricted activity postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 32 months in the orthosis group and 19 months in the pin group. Final residual extensor lag was better in the pin group (5 vs 10 degrees, P = 0.048). Improvement between the groups was in favor of percutaneous pinning (36 vs 17 degrees, P = 0.001). No correlation was seen between time to treatment (≤14 vs >14 days from injury) and final extensor lag in either group (P = 0.85). The final mean DIPJ flexion was 53 degrees for orthosis and 46 degrees for pinning. Among the patients, 93% of the orthosis group and 100% of the pin group said that they would choose the same treatment again. Both groups had a mean of 5 hand therapy visits during treatment. Two complications occurred in the orthosis group (5%) and 3 (17%) occurred in the pin group. Extension orthotics and pinning are both well-tolerated, effective treatments of mallet injury. The techniques produce satisfactory correction of extensor lag and have high patient satisfaction. Pinning allows better correction of DIPJ extensor lag and results in a smaller degree of final extensor lag. Pinning is more expensive and may result in more DIPJ stiffness (ie, loss of active flexion), but it may be justified in certain patients (eg, medical professionals, food service workers) who would have difficulty working with an orthosis.

摘要

我们比较了静态伸展矫形器与经皮穿针固定远侧指间关节(DIPJ)治疗闭合性锤状指损伤的效果。在了解治疗方案后,44例患者(25例女性和19例男性;平均年龄57岁)自由选择了矫形器治疗,18例患者(5例女性和13例男性;平均年龄51岁)选择了穿针固定治疗。伸展矫形器和穿针均固定6周;之后取出穿针,两组的护理均过渡为夜间使用矫形器,持续6周。穿针组患者术后可立即恢复无限制活动。矫形器组的平均随访时间为32个月,穿针组为19个月。穿针组的最终残留伸肌滞后情况更好(5°对10°,P = 0.048)。两组之间的改善情况更有利于经皮穿针固定(36°对17°,P = 0.001)。两组中治疗时间(受伤后≤14天对>14天)与最终伸肌滞后之间均未发现相关性(P = 0.85)。矫形器组的最终平均DIPJ屈曲角度为53°,穿针固定组为46°。在患者中,93%的矫形器组患者和100%的穿针组患者表示他们会再次选择相同的治疗方法。两组在治疗期间平均接受了5次手部治疗。矫形器组发生了2例并发症(5%),穿针组发生了3例(17%)。伸展矫形器和穿针固定都是治疗锤状指损伤耐受性良好且有效的方法。这些技术能使伸肌滞后得到满意的矫正,患者满意度高。穿针固定能更好地矫正DIPJ伸肌滞后,最终伸肌滞后程度更小。穿针固定费用更高,可能会导致DIPJ僵硬程度更高(即主动屈曲丧失),但对于某些使用矫形器有困难的患者(如医疗专业人员、食品服务工作者)可能是合理的。

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