Suppr超能文献

关节镜辅助复位内固定(ARIF)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗外侧胫骨平台骨折的比较回顾性研究。

Arthroscopically assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for lateral tibial plateau fractures: a comparative retrospective study.

机构信息

Orthopaedic Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences, Cagliari State University, Lungomare Poetto 12, 09126, Cagliari, Italy.

Department Economics and Business Science, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

出版信息

J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 May 24;14(1):155. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1186-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study aims to explore if the arthroscopically assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) technique is superior to the traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) technique in the treatment of tibial lateral plateau fractures.

METHODS

Forty patients with tibial plateau fractures (Schatzker type I-III) treated with ARIF or ORIF from 2012 to 2017 were included in this retrospective study. All patients received pre-operative radiographs and CT scans. The patients were divided into two groups (ARIF or ORIF). All patients had a minimum follow-up of 12 months and an average follow-up of 44.4 months. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated according to the Knee Society Score (KSS) and the modified Rasmussen radiological score.

RESULTS

Satisfactory clinical and radiological results were found in 39 out of 40 (97.5%) patients. KSS and modified Rasmussen radiological score were significantly better in ARIF group. The mean KSS was 92.37 (± 6.3) for the ARIF group and 86.29 (± 11.54) for the ORIF group (p < 0.05). The mean modified Rasmussen radiographic score was 8.42 (± 2.24) for the ARIF group and 7.33 (± 1.83) for the ORIF group (p = 0.104). Worst clinical and radiological results were related to concomitant intra-articular lesions (p < 0.05). Meniscal tears were found and treated in 17 out of 40 (42.5%) patients. The overall complication rate was 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ARIF and ORIF provided a satisfactory outcome for the treatment of Schatzker I-III tibial plateau fractures. However, ARIF led to better clinical results than ORIF. No statistically significant differences were found in perioperative complications, radiological results, and post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在探讨关节镜辅助复位内固定(ARIF)技术是否优于传统切开复位内固定(ORIF)技术治疗胫骨外侧平台骨折。

方法

本回顾性研究纳入了 2012 年至 2017 年间接受 ARIF 或 ORIF 治疗的 40 例胫骨平台骨折(Schatzker Ⅰ-Ⅲ型)患者。所有患者均接受术前 X 线和 CT 扫描。患者分为两组(ARIF 或 ORIF)。所有患者的随访时间均至少为 12 个月,平均随访时间为 44.4 个月。根据膝关节协会评分(KSS)和改良 Rasmussen 放射学评分评估临床和放射学结果。

结果

40 例患者中,39 例(97.5%)临床和放射学结果满意。ARIF 组的 KSS 和改良 Rasmussen 放射学评分明显更好。ARIF 组的平均 KSS 为 92.37(±6.3),ORIF 组为 86.29(±11.54)(p<0.05)。ARIF 组的平均改良 Rasmussen 放射学评分为 8.42(±2.24),ORIF 组为 7.33(±1.83)(p=0.104)。最差的临床和放射学结果与关节内合并损伤有关(p<0.05)。40 例患者中发现并治疗了 17 例半月板撕裂。总的并发症发生率为 10%。

结论

ARIF 和 ORIF 均为 Schatzker I-III 胫骨平台骨折的治疗提供了满意的结果。然而,ARIF 比 ORIF 带来了更好的临床效果。在围手术期并发症、放射学结果和创伤后膝关节骨关节炎方面无统计学显著差异。

证据水平

III 级。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ceef/6534860/6865d62c08d7/13018_2019_1186_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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