Suppr超能文献

综合固定在创伤后胫骨骨缺损重建中是否有益?

Does Integrated Fixation Provide Benefit in the Reconstruction of Posttraumatic Tibial Bone Defects?

作者信息

Bernstein Mitchell, Fragomen Austin T, Sabharwal Samir, Barclay Jonathan, Rozbruch S Robert

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, 2160 S First Avenue, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA,

出版信息

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Oct;473(10):3143-53. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4326-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Limb salvage in the presence of posttraumatic tibial bone loss can be accomplished using the traditional Ilizarov method of distraction osteogenesis with circular external fixation. Internal fixation placed at the beginning of the consolidation phase, so-called integrated fixation, may allow for earlier removal of the external fixator but introduces concerns about cross-contamination from the additional open procedure and maintenance of bone regenerate stability.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients deemed eligible for integrated fixation, we sought to determine: (1) Does integrated fixation decrease the time in the external fixator? (2) Is there a difference in the rate of complications between the two groups? (3) Are there differences in functional and radiographic results between integrated fixation and the traditional Ilizarov approach of external fixation alone?

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2012, we treated 58 patients (58 tibiae) with posttraumatic tibial bone loss using the Ilizarov method. Of those, 30 patients (52%) were treated with the "classic technique" (external fixator alone) and 28 (48%) were treated with the "integrated technique" (a combination of an external fixator and plating or insertion of an intramedullary nail). During that period, the general indications for use of the integrated technique were closed physes, no active infection, and a healed soft tissue envelope located at the intended internal fixation site; the remainder of the patients were treated with the classic technique. Followup on 30 (100%) and 28 (100%) patients in the classic and integrated techniques, respectively, was achieved at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 3 years; range, 1-8 years). Adverse events were reported as problems, obstacles, and complications according to the publication by Paley. Problems and obstacles are managed by nonoperative and operative means, respectively; in addition, they resolve completely with treatment. Complications, according to the Paley classification, result in permanent sequelae. Functional and radiographic results were reported using the Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Ilizarov scoring system.

RESULTS

Overall, there was a mean of four (range, 2-5) surgical procedures to complete the tibial reconstruction with a similar incidence of unplanned surgical procedures (obstacles) between the two groups (p = 0.87). Patients treated with integrated fixation spent less time in the external fixator, 7 months (range, 5-20 months) versus 11 months (range, 1-15 months; p < 0.001). There were seven problems, 15 obstacles, and zero complications in the classic group. Ten problems, 15 obstacles, and one complication occurred in the integrated fixation group. There was no difference in the severity (p = 0.87) or number (p = 0.40) of complications between both groups. Good to excellent Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Ilizarov function and bone scores were obtained in 100% and 98% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The integrated fixation method allows for a more efficient limb salvage surgical reconstruction in patients carefully selected for that approach, whereas the frequency of adverse events and ability to restore limb lengths was not different between the groups with the numbers available. Careful placement of external fixation pins is critical to decrease cross-contamination with planned internal fixation constructs. In this study of posttraumatic tibial bone defect reconstruction, good/excellent results were found in all patients after a mean of four surgical procedures; however, a larger multicenter prospective study would allow for more robust and generalizable conclusions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

摘要

背景

对于存在创伤后胫骨骨缺损的保肢治疗,可采用传统的伊利扎洛夫(Ilizarov)牵张成骨方法结合环形外固定。在骨愈合期开始时放置内固定,即所谓的一体化固定,可能允许更早拆除外固定器,但会引发对额外开放手术导致的交叉感染以及骨再生稳定性维持的担忧。

问题/目的:在被认为适合一体化固定的患者中,我们试图确定:(1)一体化固定是否能减少外固定器的使用时间?(2)两组之间并发症发生率是否存在差异?(3)一体化固定与单纯传统伊利扎洛夫外固定方法在功能和影像学结果上是否存在差异?

方法

2006年1月至2012年12月期间,我们采用伊利扎洛夫方法治疗了58例(58条胫骨)创伤后胫骨骨缺损患者。其中,30例(52%)采用“经典技术”(单纯外固定器)治疗,28例(48%)采用“一体化技术”(外固定器与钢板固定或髓内钉植入相结合)治疗。在此期间,一体化技术的一般使用指征为骨骺闭合、无活动性感染以及预期内固定部位的软组织包膜愈合;其余患者采用经典技术治疗。分别对经典技术组的30例(100%)和一体化技术组的28例(100%)患者进行了至少1年的随访(平均3年;范围1 - 8年)。根据帕利(Paley)的出版物,不良事件被报告为问题、障碍和并发症。问题和障碍分别通过非手术和手术方式处理;此外,它们通过治疗可完全解决。根据帕利分类,并发症会导致永久性后遗症。使用伊利扎洛夫方法研究与应用协会评分系统报告功能和影像学结果。

结果

总体而言,完成胫骨重建平均需要进行4次(范围2 - 5次)手术,两组间计划外手术(障碍)的发生率相似(p = 0.87)。采用一体化固定治疗的患者使用外固定器的时间较短,为7个月(范围5 - 20个月),而经典技术组为11个月(范围1 - 15个月;p < 0.001)。经典技术组有7个问题、15个障碍,无并发症。一体化固定组有10个问题、15个障碍和1例并发症。两组间并发症的严重程度(p = 0.87)或数量(p = 0.40)无差异。分别有100%和98%的患者获得了伊利扎洛夫方法研究与应用协会良好至优秀的功能和骨评分。

结论

对于经仔细筛选适合该方法的患者,一体化固定方法能实现更高效的保肢手术重建,而在现有病例数量下,两组间不良事件的发生频率和恢复肢体长度的能力并无差异。仔细放置外固定针对于减少与计划内固定结构的交叉感染至关重要。在这项创伤后胫骨骨缺损重建的研究中,平均经过4次手术后所有患者均取得了良好/优秀的结果;然而,更大规模的多中心前瞻性研究将得出更可靠且更具普遍性的结论。

证据水平

III级,治疗性研究。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
Adjustable bone plate: from bench to operating room.可调节接骨板:从实验台到手术室。
Turk J Med Sci. 2022 Oct 10;53(5):1379-1386. doi: 10.55730/1300-0144.5704. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

2
Adult chronic osteomyelitis.成人慢性骨髓炎。
Orthopedics. 1984 Oct 1;7(10):1557-64. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19841001-07.
10

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