• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

[经皮髂骨内固定器和两枚髂骶螺钉微创稳定骨盆后环损伤:疗效比较]

[Minimally invasive stabilization of posterior pelvic ring injuries with a transiliac internal fixator and two iliosacral screws: comparison of outcome].

作者信息

Salášek M, Pavelka T, Křen J, Weisová D, Jansová M

机构信息

Klinika ortopedie a traumatologie pohybového ústrojí LF UK a FN Plzeň

出版信息

Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2015;82(1):41-7.

PMID:25748660
Abstract

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

A comparison of radiological and clinical results between dorsal pelvic segment stabilization with a transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) and that with two iliosacral screws (IS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective study, both the TIFI and the IS group had 32 patients. The majority of injuries were assessed as type C1.3 because only patients with a high-energy mechanism of injury were included. Radiological results were evaluated according to the Matta scoring system and clinical outcome using the Majeed score and the Pelvic Outcome Score. Categorical data were evaluated by the two-sided Fisher's exact test or Pearson's χ2 test and continuous data by Student's t-test. A test result with p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In the TIFI group, the mean posterior displacement was 2.2 mm, in the IS group it was 1.9 mm (p=0.58542). The pelvic outcome scores in the TIFI group were: excellent, 28%; good, 12%; fair, 48.0%; and poor, 4 %; in the IS group they were: excellent, 11.1%; good, 22.2%; fair, 66.7%; and poor, 0.0% (p=0.51731). The Majeed scores were as follows: excellent, 56.0%; good, 16.0%; fair, 20.0%; poor 8.0 % for the TIFI group and excellent, 50.0%; good, 27.8%; fair, 11.1%; and poor, 11.1% for the IS group (p=0.70187). Within the total, average Majeed score was 80.64 points in TIFI, 80.67 in IS (p=0.99654). In a sub-analysis of unilateral transforaminal fractures (Pohlemann type II), the average score for TIFI was 82.8 points and only 53.5 points for IS; the differences were statistically significant (p=0.04517). No intraoperative complications were associated with TIFI and one injury to the superior gluteal artery (3.1%) and two iatrogenic neurological injuries with IS (6.3%; p=0.23810). In the TIFI group, the fixator was removed without complications. In the IS group, post-operative wound bleeding following screw removal occurred in three patients (20.0%; p=0.22414), complete extraction of screws and washers was successful only in seven patients (46.7%), washers were left in situ in six patients (40.0 %) and IS removal was not possible in two patients (13.3%). The difference in complications between the groups was highly significant (p=0.00220).

DISCUSSION

The results of our study are in agreement with those of the relevant studies published recently as well as with the outcomes of transiliac plate fixation reported in the literature. TIFI implantation is preferred in transforaminal and central sacral fractures because, unlike iliosacral screws, it carries a low risk of excessive compression of the sacral foramina and iatrogenic neurological injury. There were no significant differences in clinical and radiological findings between TIFI and IS procedures. Only in unilateral transforaminal fracture the TIFI stabilization had better outcome, as shown by the Majeed score. The IS fixation was associated with a higher rate of complications not only in primary implantation, but also at implant removal.

CONCLUSIONS

The TIFI technique is superior to the IS procedure in fixation of unilateral transforaminal fractures and provides a reasonable alternative to the existing types of minimally invasive fixation.

摘要

研究目的

比较经髂内固定器(TIFI)与两枚髂骶螺钉(IS)进行骨盆背侧节段稳定术的影像学和临床结果。

材料与方法

在这项前瞻性研究中,TIFI组和IS组各有32例患者。由于仅纳入了高能量损伤机制的患者,大多数损伤被评估为C1.3型。根据Matta评分系统评估影像学结果,使用Majeed评分和骨盆结果评分评估临床结果。分类数据采用双侧Fisher精确检验或Pearson卡方检验进行评估,连续数据采用Student t检验进行评估。p<0.05的检验结果被认为具有统计学意义。

结果

TIFI组平均后移位为2.2mm,IS组为1.9mm(p = 0.58542)。TIFI组的骨盆结果评分如下:优秀,28%;良好,12%;一般,48.0%;差,4%;IS组的评分如下:优秀,11.1%;良好,22.2%;一般,66.7%;差,0.0%(p = 0.51731)。TIFI组的Majeed评分如下:优秀,56.0%;良好,16.0%;一般,20.0%;差,8.0%;IS组的评分如下:优秀,50.0%;良好,27.8%;一般,11.1%;差,11.1%(p = 0.70187)。总体而言,TIFI组的平均Majeed评分为80.64分,IS组为80.67分(p = 0.99654)。在单侧经椎间孔骨折(Pohlemann II型)的亚分析中,TIFI组的平均评分为82.8分,IS组仅为53.5分;差异具有统计学意义(p = 0.04517)。TIFI未发生术中并发症,IS发生1例臀上动脉损伤(3.1%)和2例医源性神经损伤(6.3%;p = 0.23810)。在TIFI组,固定器顺利取出,无并发症。在IS组,3例患者(20.0%)在取出螺钉后出现术后伤口出血(p = 0.22414),仅7例患者(46.7%)成功完全取出螺钉和垫圈,6例患者(40.0%)垫圈留在原位,2例患者(13.3%)无法取出IS。两组之间并发症的差异具有高度统计学意义(p = 0.00220)。

讨论

我们的研究结果与最近发表的相关研究结果以及文献中报道的经髂钢板固定的结果一致。TIFI植入术更适用于经椎间孔和中央骶骨骨折,因为与髂骶螺钉不同,它导致骶孔过度受压和医源性神经损伤的风险较低。TIFI和IS手术在临床和影像学表现上无显著差异。如Majeed评分所示,仅在单侧经椎间孔骨折中,TIFI稳定术的效果更好。IS固定不仅在初次植入时,而且在取出植入物时并发症发生率更高。

结论

在单侧经椎间孔骨折的固定中,TIFI技术优于IS手术,为现有的微创固定类型提供了合理的替代方案。

相似文献

1
[Minimally invasive stabilization of posterior pelvic ring injuries with a transiliac internal fixator and two iliosacral screws: comparison of outcome].[经皮髂骨内固定器和两枚髂骶螺钉微创稳定骨盆后环损伤:疗效比较]
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2015;82(1):41-7.
2
[Minimally invasive fixation of the pelvic ring with a transiliacal internal fixator].[经髂骨内固定器微创固定骨盆环]
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2012;79(4):335-40.
3
[The minimally invasive stabilization of the dorsal pelvic ring with the transiliacal internal fixator (TIFI)--surgical technique and first clinical findings].[经髂骨内固定器(TIFI)对骨盆后环进行微创稳定术——手术技术及初步临床结果]
Unfallchirurg. 2004 Dec;107(12):1142-51. doi: 10.1007/s00113-004-0824-9.
4
Minimally invasive stabilisation of posterior pelvic ring instabilities with pedicle screws connected to a transverse rod.使用连接至横向杆的椎弓根螺钉对骨盆后环不稳定进行微创稳定固定。
Int Orthop. 2018 Mar;42(3):681-686. doi: 10.1007/s00264-017-3714-9. Epub 2017 Dec 14.
5
Functional outcome of unstable pelvic ring injuries after iliosacral screw fixation: single versus two screw fixation.骶髂螺钉固定后不稳定骨盆环损伤的功能预后:单枚螺钉与双枚螺钉固定对比
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015 Aug;41(4):387-92. doi: 10.1007/s00068-014-0456-x. Epub 2014 Oct 21.
6
Does minimally invasive percutaneous transilial internal fixator became an effective option for sacral fractures? A prospective study with novel implantation technique.经皮微创经直肠内固定器是否成为骶骨骨折的有效选择?一种具有新植入技术的前瞻性研究。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023 Jun;49(3):1535-1544. doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02212-6. Epub 2023 Jan 24.
7
The Effect of Transiliac-Transsacral Screw Fixation for Pelvic Ring Injuries on the Uninjured Sacroiliac Joint.经髂-经骶螺钉固定治疗骨盆环损伤对未受伤骶髂关节的影响
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Sep;30(9):463-8. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000622.
8
Biomechanical comparison of a transiliac internal fixator and two iliosacral screws in transforaminal sacral fractures: a finite element analysis.经椎间孔骶骨骨折中经髂内固定器与两枚髂骶螺钉的生物力学比较:有限元分析
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2015;17(1):39-49.
9
A minimally invasive stabilizing system for dorsal pelvic ring injuries.一种用于骨盆背环损伤的微创稳定系统。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Nov;469(11):3209-17. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1922-y. Epub 2011 May 24.
10
Iliosacral screw fixation of the unstable pelvic ring injuries.不稳定骨盆环损伤的髂骶螺钉固定术。
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2010 Jun;77(3):209-14.

引用本文的文献

1
Numerical study of pedicle screw construction and locking compression plate fixation in posterior pelvic ring injuries: Analyzed by finite element method.基于有限元分析法对骨盆后环损伤中椎弓根螺钉构建和锁定加压钢板固定的数值研究。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 May 17;103(20):e38258. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038258.
2
A systematic review of the transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) for posterior pelvic injuries.经髂骨内固定器(TIFI)治疗骨盆后部损伤的系统评价。
SICOT J. 2021;7:40. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2021037. Epub 2021 Jul 26.