Suppr超能文献

对两种未进行分期治疗的胫骨平台骨折方法进行回顾性研究。

Retrospective review of tibial plateau fractures treated by two methods without staging.

作者信息

Conserva Vito, Vicenti Giovanni, Allegretti Giovanni, Filipponi Marco, Monno Alessandra, Picca Girolamo, Moretti Biagio

机构信息

Department of Neuroscience and Organs of Sense, Orthopedics Section, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Bari, Policlinico, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy.

Department of Neuroscience and Organs of Sense, Orthopedics Section, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Bari, Policlinico, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy.

出版信息

Injury. 2015 Oct;46(10):1951-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.018. Epub 2015 Jul 26.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Management of complex tibial plateau fractures can be challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. Wide disagreement still remains about the best surgical technique to use in these fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of complex tibial plateau fractures treated by an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus hybrid external fixation (EF) in term of clinical and functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined a series of 79 patients affected by tibial plateau fractures admitted at our Department between January 2006 and November 2011. Forty-one patients were treated using a hybrid EF; in 38 cases, ORIF technique was used. Clinical evaluation was performed using the method of Rasmussen; functional assessment was made using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Residual pain was detected using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS).

RESULTS

The average time to union in the plate group was 17.2 weeks (9.1-45 weeks), while in the EF one 15.9 (7.5-32). The mean overall hospital stay was 14.2 days for the ORIF group and 7.8 for the EF group. At the last follow-up, the mean Rasmussen score was 24.9 (good) in the patients treated with ORIF and 25 (good) in those who received EF. The WOMAC index disclosed a relatively higher score in the EF group (80.5 ORIF-84.2 EF). Pain evaluation revealed no differences between the groups. In terms of complications, deep infection occurred in four (10.5%) patients belonging to the ORIF group and 2 (4.9%) to EF one. Signs of osteoarthritis (OA) were observed in 4 (10.5%) knees that had open reduction and in 11 (26.9%) that had a hybrid external fixator.

CONCLUSIONS

Either ORIF or hybrid EF represents a valid treatment option in complex tibial plateau fractures. However, hybrid external fixation has shown relative better functional outcome results, relative lower rate of infection and decreased hospital stays. These aspects make of EF our best choice in case of high-energy complex tibial fractures.

摘要

引言

复杂胫骨平台骨折的治疗对骨科医生而言具有挑战性。对于此类骨折采用何种最佳手术技术,目前仍存在广泛分歧。本研究旨在比较切开复位内固定术(ORIF)与混合外固定术(EF)治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折的临床和功能结果。

材料与方法

我们回顾性研究了2006年1月至2011年11月间在我院收治的79例胫骨平台骨折患者。41例患者采用混合外固定术治疗;38例采用切开复位内固定术。临床评估采用拉斯穆森方法;功能评估采用西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)问卷。使用数字评分量表(NRS)检测残余疼痛。

结果

钢板组平均愈合时间为17.2周(9.1 - 45周),而外固定组为15.9周(7.5 - 32周)。切开复位内固定术组平均总住院时间为14.2天,外固定组为7.8天。在最后一次随访时,切开复位内固定术治疗患者的平均拉斯穆森评分为24.9(良好),接受外固定术患者的评分为25(良好)。WOMAC指数显示外固定组得分相对较高(切开复位内固定术组80.5 - 外固定组84.2)。疼痛评估显示两组间无差异。在并发症方面,切开复位内固定术组有4例(10.5%)患者发生深部感染,外固定组有2例(4.9%)。在接受切开复位的4例(10.5%)膝关节和采用混合外固定器的11例(26.9%)膝关节中观察到骨关节炎(OA)迹象。

结论

切开复位内固定术或混合外固定术都是治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折的有效选择。然而,混合外固定术显示出相对更好的功能结果、相对较低的感染率和缩短的住院时间。这些方面使外固定术成为治疗高能复杂胫骨骨折的最佳选择。

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