Suppr超能文献

双杠矫正漏斗胸的效果:平行杠与交叉杠技术的比较。

The effectiveness of double-bar correction for pectus excavatum: A comparison between the parallel bar and cross-bar techniques.

机构信息

Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 17;15(9):e0238539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238539. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness between parallel bar and cross-bar techniques for treating pectus excavatum.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients who underwent parallel bar insertion (group 1) or cross-bar insertion (group 2) were evaluated retrospectively. From the pre- and post-operative chest CT images, vertebral-level-specific pectus indices were defined as the ratio of the maximum transverse diameter to the anteroposterior diameter of the thoracic cavity at a specific vertebral level and measured at 3 levels up (3Up-PI, 2Up-PI, 1Up-PI) and 1 vertebral level down (1Down-PI) from the narrowest point. The effectiveness of double-bar correction was compared between the 2 groups using postoperative vertebral level-specific pectus index changes.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients were enrolled in group 1, and 36 patients were enrolled in group 2. Preoperative pectus index values were not different between the 2 groups (4.5 ± 1.0 vs. 4.9 ± 1.5, P = 0.135). After double-bar correction, pectus index significantly decreased in both groups. There were no differences in postoperative pectus indices between the 2 groups (2.7 ± 0.4 vs. 2.6 ± 0.3, P = 0.197). Postoperative changes in 3Up-PI, 2Up-PI, and 1Up-PI were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). However, postoperative changes at the narrowest level and at 1Down-PI were significantly greater in group 2 than in group 1 (1.78 ± 0.85 vs. 2.32 ± 1.44, P = 0.009; 1.21 ± 0.70 vs. 1.70 ± 1.20, P = 0.009, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Double-bar correction appears to be effective for treating pectus excavatum. The cross-bar insertion technique might be superior to the parallel bar insertion technique for correcting a wider range of deformities, especially at the lower part of the depression.

摘要

目的

比较平行杠和交叉杠技术治疗漏斗胸的效果。

方法

回顾性分析 80 例接受平行杠插入(第 1 组)或交叉杠插入(第 2 组)的患者。从术前和术后胸部 CT 图像中,定义特定椎体水平的椎体特异性漏斗胸指数为最大横径与特定椎体水平胸腔前后径的比值,并在最窄点上方 3 个椎体水平(3Up-PI、2Up-PI、1Up-PI)和 1 个椎体水平(1Down-PI)处测量。使用术后椎体特异性漏斗胸指数变化比较两组双杠矫正的效果。

结果

第 1 组共纳入 44 例患者,第 2 组共纳入 36 例患者。两组患者术前漏斗胸指数无差异(4.5±1.0 比 4.9±1.5,P=0.135)。双杠矫正后,两组漏斗胸指数均显著降低。两组术后漏斗胸指数无差异(2.7±0.4 比 2.6±0.3,P=0.197)。两组术后 3Up-PI、2Up-PI 和 1Up-PI 的变化无显著差异(P>0.05)。然而,第 2 组最窄水平和 1Down-PI 的术后变化明显大于第 1 组(1.78±0.85 比 2.32±1.44,P=0.009;1.21±0.70 比 1.70±1.20,P=0.009)。

结论

双杠矫正似乎对治疗漏斗胸有效。交叉杠插入技术可能比平行杠插入技术更能矫正更广泛的畸形,特别是凹陷的下部。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5500/7498055/c4a965084b5a/pone.0238539.g001.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