From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina.
Ann Plast Surg. 2021 Jun 1;86(6S Suppl 5):S470-S472. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002877.
The purpose of our study was to compare postoperative outcomes between patients receiving closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) to open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) following metacarpal and phalanx fractures.
A retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic center for all patients suffering a metacarpal or phalanx fracture and receiving either CRPP or ORIF between 2012 and 2018. Patients were divided into fracture mechanism, high-energy mechanism of injury, low-energy mechanism of injury, or unknown, and treatment of fracture with either ORIF or CRPP. High-energy mechanism of injury included gunshot wounds, motor vehicle crash, and blast injuries, whereas low-energy mechanism of injury included all other causes. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and return to the operating room were recorded.
A total of 408 patients, with 524 fractures, were included in the study. There were 127 fractures that resulted from high-energy mechanisms and 394 fractures that resulted from low-energy mechanisms. Open reduction internal fixation was used to treat 299 fractures, whereas CRPP was used for 225 fractures. Among fracture fixation, there was a total of 8.4% complication rate with ORIF, accounting for 10.4% of complications, and CRPP accounting for 5.8%. Among the fracture mechanism, the high-energy mechanism of injury had a 21.3% complication rate, whereas the low-energy mechanism of energy was 4.3%. When comparing the above variables, only high-energy mechanism of injury was a statistically significant predictor of complications (odds ratio, 3.2; confidence interval, 1.5-7.0; P = 0.002). The average operating room time for the ORIF group was 124.82 minutes compared with 97.6 minutes for the CRPP group.
Patients with hand fractures corrected by ORIF appeared to have a higher postoperative complication rate. When the 2 procedures, ORIF and CRPP, were controlled for mechanism of injury, there was not a statistically significant difference in postoperative complication rate (P = 0.14). However, a fracture sustained by a high-energy mechanism was a statistically significant predictor of postoperative complications (P = 0.002).
我们的研究目的是比较掌骨和指骨骨折患者接受闭合复位经皮克氏针固定(CRPP)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)的术后结果。
对单家学术中心在 2012 年至 2018 年期间接受 CRPP 或 ORIF 治疗的掌骨或指骨骨折患者进行回顾性病历分析。患者根据骨折机制、高能损伤机制、低能损伤机制或不明机制以及 ORIF 或 CRPP 治疗骨折进行分组。高能损伤机制包括枪伤、机动车事故和爆炸伤,而低能损伤机制包括所有其他原因。记录患者人口统计学资料、术后并发症、30 天再入院和返回手术室情况。
共有 408 例患者(524 处骨折)纳入研究。其中 127 处骨折由高能机制引起,394 处骨折由低能机制引起。299 处骨折采用切开复位内固定治疗,225 处骨折采用经皮克氏针固定。在骨折固定中,ORIF 的并发症发生率为 8.4%,占并发症的 10.4%,CRPP 的并发症发生率为 5.8%。在骨折机制中,高能损伤机制的并发症发生率为 21.3%,低能损伤机制的并发症发生率为 4.3%。比较上述变量后,只有高能损伤机制是并发症的统计学显著预测因素(优势比,3.2;置信区间,1.5-7.0;P=0.002)。ORIF 组的平均手术室时间为 124.82 分钟,CRPP 组为 97.6 分钟。
接受 ORIF 矫正的手部骨折患者术后并发症发生率似乎更高。当将 ORIF 和 CRPP 这两种手术方式按损伤机制进行控制时,术后并发症发生率无统计学显著差异(P=0.14)。然而,高能损伤机制引起的骨折是术后并发症的统计学显著预测因素(P=0.002)。