Suppr超能文献

髌下入路半扩髓髓内钉治疗胫骨:回顾性队列研究。

Semi-extended intramedullary nailing of the tibia using an infrapatellar approach: a retrospective cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Joint Surgery, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, No. 91 West of Qianjin Road, Suzhou, 215300, Jiangsu, China.

Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Suzhou, 215300, Jiangsu, China.

出版信息

Int Orthop. 2021 Oct;45(10):2719-2726. doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-04974-x. Epub 2021 Feb 9.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The semi-extended tibial intramedullary nailing method would enable easier and improved reductions for tibial fractures as well as facilitate fluoroscopic imaging; however, its in-articular nature remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of the semi-extended infrapatellar (SEIP) approach and hyper-flexed infrapatellar (HFIP) approach for intramedullary nailing to treat tibial shaft fractures.

METHODS

This study involved the retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with tibial shaft fractures that were fixed through either the SEIP approach or the HFIP approach of intramedullary nailing and who were admitted to a level 1 trauma centre. The minimum patient follow-up period was 12 months and the clinical and functional outcomes were estimated at the 12-month visit.

RESULTS

Of the 80 patients whose medical records were analyzed, 40 (50%) underwent SEIP nailing and the remaining 40 (50%) underwent the traditional HFIP nailing. Compared with the HFIP group, patients in the SEIP group had a higher Lysholm knee score (median, 92 [interquartile range, 88-95] vs median, 88 [interquartile range, 81-92]; p = .01), a shorter intra-operative fluoroscopy time (median, 93 [interquartile range, 78-105] s, vs median, 136 [interquartile range, 110-157] s; p < .001), and operation time (mean, 88.1 [SD, 17.8] min vs mean, 98.7 [SD, 19.3] min; p = .01). The VAS score was significantly lower in the SEIP group (median, 0; interquartile range, 0-0) than in the HFIP group (median, 0; interquartile range, 0-2) (p = .03). There were two cases (5%) in the SEIP group and 10 cases (25%) in the HFIP group of moderate AKP (p = .03). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in malalignment, nonunion, delayed union, infection, and other complications, as well as SF-36 physical and mental scores.

CONCLUSION

We found that the SEIP approach to tibia intramedullary nailing was superior to the HFIP approach based on the intra-operative and post-operative outcomes. Thus, this novel technique provides an infrapatellar option for semi-extended tibial nailing.

摘要

目的

半伸展髌下入路髓内钉固定术可便于胫骨骨折的复位,改善透视成像效果;然而,其关节内的性质仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较髌下入路(SEIP)和超伸展髌下入路(HFIP)在髓内钉治疗胫骨骨干骨折中的临床和功能结果。

方法

本研究回顾性分析了在 1 级创伤中心接受 SEIP 或 HFIP 入路髓内钉治疗的胫骨骨干骨折患者的病历。患者的最低随访时间为 12 个月,并在 12 个月时评估临床和功能结果。

结果

在分析的 80 份病历中,40 份(50%)行 SEIP 髓内钉固定,其余 40 份(50%)行传统 HFIP 髓内钉固定。与 HFIP 组相比,SEIP 组患者的 Lysholm 膝关节评分更高(中位数,92[四分位距,88-95] vs 中位数,88[四分位距,81-92];p =.01),术中透视时间更短(中位数,93[四分位距,78-105] s,中位数,136[四分位距,110-157] s;p <.001),手术时间更短(平均值,88.1[标准差,17.8] min,平均值,98.7[标准差,19.3] min;p =.01)。SEIP 组的 VAS 评分明显低于 HFIP 组(中位数,0;四分位距,0-0)(p =.03)。SEIP 组有 2 例(5%)和 HFIP 组有 10 例(25%)中度 AKP(p =.03)。同时,两组在对线不良、骨不连、延迟愈合、感染和其他并发症以及 SF-36 身心评分方面无显著差异。

结论

我们发现,根据术中及术后结果,SEIP 入路胫骨髓内钉固定优于 HFIP 入路。因此,这种新技术为半伸展胫骨髓内钉提供了髌下入路的选择。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验