Suppr超能文献

与传统锁定髓内钉相比,胫骨爪形髓内钉在临床上是否更具优势?

Is talon tibial intramedullary nailing clinically superior compared to conventional locked nailing?

作者信息

Çamurcu Yalkın, Sofu Hakan, Issın Ahmet, Koçkara Nizamettin, Genç Erdinç, Çetinkaya Mehmet

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Medical Faculty of Erzincan University, 24100 Erzincan, Turkey.

出版信息

Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2017 Dec;28(3):152-7. doi: 10.5606/ehc.2017.55349.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare the results of talon tibial intramedullary (IM) nailing with the results of conventional distal locked tibial IM nailing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 60 patients (37 males, 23 females; mean age 42.2 years; range 18 to 92 years) who underwent tibial IM nailing with the diagnosis of unilateral, closed or open (Gustilo-Anderson type 1) tibial diaphyseal fracture (Orthopaedic Trauma Association 42) between January 2013 and January 2016. Patients were separated into two groups as talon tibial IM nailing group (group 1, n=30) and distal locked tibial IM nailing group (group 2, n=30). All patients' operative and total radiation exposure times were recorded. At last control, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores were evaluated for clinical outcomes. All complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 43.8 minutes in group 1 and 50.2 minutes in group 2. Mean radiation exposure time in group 1 was 5.4 minutes, which was three times shorter than the time of group 2, which was 17.5 minutes. Mean time until union was 16.9 weeks in group 1 and 12.2 weeks in group 2. Statistically significant differences were present between two groups in operative, radiation exposure time and time until union (p=0.019, p=0.001, p=0.001, respectively). When American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores were compared, there were no statistically significant differences (p=0.951 and p=0.896).

CONCLUSION

Talon tibial IM nailing is an easier and safer alternative to conventional distal locked tibial IM nailing with shorter operative and radiation exposure times. However, it should be kept in mind that the time until radiographic union may be longer compared to conventional tibial IM nailing.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较距骨胫骨髓内钉固定与传统远端锁定胫骨髓内钉固定的效果。

患者与方法

本研究纳入了60例患者(37例男性,23例女性;平均年龄42.2岁;年龄范围18至92岁),这些患者在2013年1月至2016年1月期间因单侧、闭合或开放性(Gustilo-Anderson 1型)胫骨干骨折(骨科创伤协会42型)接受了胫骨髓内钉固定治疗。患者被分为两组,即距骨胫骨髓内钉固定组(第1组,n = 30)和远端锁定胫骨髓内钉固定组(第2组,n = 30)。记录所有患者的手术时间和总辐射暴露时间。在末次随访时,评估美国矫形足踝协会(American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society)和Tegner Lysholm评分以评估临床疗效。记录所有并发症。

结果

第1组的平均手术时间为43.8分钟,第2组为50.2分钟。第1组的平均辐射暴露时间为5.4分钟,比第2组的17.5分钟短三倍。第1组的平均愈合时间为16.9周,第2组为12.2周。两组在手术时间、辐射暴露时间和愈合时间方面存在统计学显著差异(分别为p = 0.019、p = 0.001、p = 0.001)。比较美国矫形足踝协会和Tegner Lysholm评分时,无统计学显著差异(p = 0.951和p = 0.896)。

结论

距骨胫骨髓内钉固定是传统远端锁定胫骨髓内钉固定的一种更简便、更安全的替代方法,具有更短的手术时间和辐射暴露时间。然而,应牢记与传统胫骨髓内钉固定相比,影像学愈合时间可能更长。

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