Hagen Jennifer, Castillo Renan, Dubina Andrew, Gaski Greg, Manson Theodore T, O'Toole Robert V
University of Florida, 3450 Hull Road, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jun;474(6):1422-9. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4525-1.
Debate remains over the role of surgical treatment in minimally displaced lateral compression (Young-Burgess, LC, OTA 61-B1/B2) pelvic ring injuries. Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) injuries are defined by an impaction fracture at the sacrum; type 2 (LC2) are defined by a fracture that extends through the posterior iliac wing at the level of the sacroiliac joint. Some believe that operative stabilization of these fractures limits pain and eases mobilization, but to our knowledge there are few controlled studies on the topic.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does operative stabilization of LC1 and LC2 pelvic fractures decrease patients' narcotic use and lower their visual analog scale pain scores? (2) Does stabilization allow patients to mobilize earlier with physical therapy?
This retrospective study of LC1 and LC2 fractures evaluated patients treated definitively at one institution from 2007 to 2013. All patients treated surgically, all nonoperative LC2, and all nonoperative LC1 fractures with complete sacral injury were included. In general, LC1 or LC2 fractures with greater than 10 mm of displacement and/or sagittal/axial plane deformity on static radiographs were treated surgically. One hundred fifty-eight patients in the LC1 group (107 [of 697 screened] nonoperative, 51 surgical) and 123 patients in the LC2 group (78 nonoperative, 45 surgical) met inclusion criteria. The surgical and nonoperative groups were matched for fracture type. To account for differences between patients treated surgically and nonoperatively, we used propensity modeling techniques incorporating treatment predictors. Propensity scores demonstrated good overlap and were used as part of multiple variable regression models to account for selection bias between the surgically treated and nonoperative groups. Patient-reported pain scores and narcotic administration were tallied in 24-hour increments during the first 24 hours of hospitalization, at 48 hours after intervention, and in the 24 hours before discharge. Time from intervention to mobilization out of bed was recorded; intervention was defined as the date of definitive surgical intervention or the day the surgeon determined the patient would be treated without surgery.
There was no difference in the narcotics distributed to any of the groups with the exception that the patients with surgically treated LC2 fractures used, on average (mean [95% confidence interval]) 40.2 (-72.9 to -7.6) mg morphine less at the 48-hour mark (p = 0.016). In general, there were no differences between the groups' pain scores. The surgically treated patients with LC1 fractures mobilized 1.7 (-3.3 to -0.01) days earlier (p = 0.034) than their nonoperative counterparts. There was no difference in the LC2 cohort in terms of time to mobilization between those treated with and without surgery.
There were few differences in pain scores and morphine use between the surgical and nonoperative groups, and the differences observed likely were not clinically important. We found no evidence that surgical stabilization of certain LC1 and LC2 pelvic fractures improves patients' pain, decreases their narcotic use, and improves time to mobilization. A randomized trial of patients with similar fractures and similar degrees initial displacement would help remove some of the confounders present in this study.
Level III, therapeutic study.
对于手术治疗在轻度移位的侧方压缩型(Young-Burgess分型,LC型,OTA 61-B1/B2)骨盆环损伤中的作用仍存在争议。侧方压缩1型(LC1)损伤定义为骶骨的嵌插骨折;2型(LC2)损伤定义为骨折线延伸至骶髂关节水平的髂骨后翼。一些人认为,这些骨折的手术稳定可减轻疼痛并便于活动,但据我们所知,关于该主题的对照研究很少。
问题/目的:(1)LC1和LC2骨盆骨折的手术稳定是否会减少患者的麻醉药物使用并降低其视觉模拟评分法疼痛评分?(2)稳定固定是否能使患者更早地开始物理治疗活动?
这项对LC1和LC2骨折的回顾性研究评估了2007年至2013年在一家机构接受确定性治疗的患者。纳入所有接受手术治疗的患者、所有非手术治疗的LC2患者以及所有骶骨完全损伤的非手术治疗的LC1骨折患者。一般来说,静态X线片上移位大于10 mm和/或存在矢状面/轴面畸形的LC1或LC2骨折接受手术治疗。LC1组158例患者(697例筛查患者中的107例非手术治疗,51例手术治疗)和LC2组123例患者(78例非手术治疗,45例手术治疗)符合纳入标准。手术组和非手术组按骨折类型进行匹配。为了说明手术治疗和非手术治疗患者之间的差异,我们使用了纳入治疗预测因素的倾向评分建模技术。倾向评分显示出良好的重叠性,并被用作多变量回归模型的一部分,以解释手术治疗组和非手术组之间的选择偏倚。在住院的前24小时、干预后48小时以及出院前24小时,以24小时为增量记录患者报告的疼痛评分和麻醉药物使用情况。记录从干预到下床活动的时间;干预定义为确定性手术干预日期或外科医生确定患者将接受非手术治疗的日期。
除了接受手术治疗的LC2骨折患者在48小时时平均(均值[95%置信区间])少用40.2(-72.9至-7.6)mg吗啡外(p = 0.016),各治疗组分配的麻醉药物量没有差异。总体而言,各治疗组的疼痛评分没有差异。接受手术治疗的LC1骨折患者比非手术治疗的患者提前1.7(-3.3至-0.01)天开始活动(p = 0.034)。在LC2队列中,手术治疗和非手术治疗患者的活动时间没有差异。
手术组和非手术组在疼痛评分和吗啡使用方面差异很小,观察到的差异可能在临床上并不重要。我们没有发现证据表明对某些LC1和LC2骨盆骨折进行手术稳定可改善患者疼痛、减少其麻醉药物使用并缩短活动时间。对具有相似骨折和相似初始移位程度的患者进行随机试验将有助于消除本研究中存在的一些混杂因素。
III级,治疗性研究。