Naude Jaco J, Manjra Muhammad A, Birkholtz Franz, Barnard Annette-Christi, Tetsworth Kevin, Glatt Vaida, Hohmann Erik
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Walk-A-Mile Centre for Advanced Orthopaedics, Centurion, South Africa.
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2021 Jan-Apr;16(1):32-40. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1506.
The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results following complex proximal, midshaft, and distal tibial fractures and investigate whether there are differences in outcomes between these locations.
Patients between 18 years and 65 years of age and minimum follow-up of 12 months with complex tibial fractures treated with a circular ring fixator were included. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) functional and bone scores, Foot Function Index (FFI), Four Step Square Test (FSST), and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG). Quality of life was assessed by the EQ-5D score.
A total of 45 patients were included: proximal fractures, = 11; midshaft fractures, = 17; and distal fractures, = 17. ASAMI functional ( = 0.8) and bone scores ( = 0.3) were not different. Excellent and good bone scores were achieved in >90% in all groups. FFI was 30.9 + 24.7 in the proximal group, 33.9 + 27.7 in the midshaft group, and 28.8 + 26.9 in the distal group ( = 0.8). TUG was 9.0 + 2.7 sec in the proximal group, 9.0+3.5 in the midshaft group, and 8.5+2.0 in the distal group ( = 0.67). FSST was 10.7 + 2.5 sec in the proximal, 10.3 + 3.8 in the midshaft, and 8.9 + 1.8 in the distal fracture groups ( = 0.5). EQ-5D index value was highest in the distal (0.72), lowest in the proximal (0.55), and 0.70 in the midshaft fracture groups ( = 0.001). EQ-5D VAS was significantly different between the proximal (65) and midshaft (82.3) ( = 0.001) and between the distal (75) and proximal (65) fracture groups ( = 0.001).
The results of this study suggest that the functional outcomes between proximal, midshaft, and distal complex tibial fractures are comparable. Their ability to ambulate afterward is comparable to age-related normative data, but complex tasks are more difficult and better compared to the ambulating ability of a healthy population aged 65 to 80 years. Patients with proximal tibial fractures had significantly more disability by at least one functional level and/or one health dimension.
Naude JJ, Manjra MA, Birkholtz F, Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life Following Complex Tibial Fractures Treated with Circular External Fixation: A Comparison between Proximal, Midshaft, and Distal Tibial Fractures. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(1):32-40.
本研究旨在比较复杂胫骨近端、中段和远端骨折后的临床结果,并调查这些部位之间的预后是否存在差异。
纳入年龄在18岁至65岁之间、采用环形外固定器治疗复杂胫骨骨折且随访至少12个月的患者。使用伊里扎洛夫方法研究与应用协会(ASAMI)功能和骨评分、足部功能指数(FFI)、四步正方形试验(FSST)和计时起立行走试验(TUG)评估功能预后。通过EQ-5D评分评估生活质量。
共纳入45例患者:近端骨折11例;中段骨折17例;远端骨折17例。ASAMI功能评分(P=0.8)和骨评分(P=0.3)无差异。所有组中骨评分优秀和良好的比例均超过90%。近端组FFI为30.9±24.7,中段组为33.9±27.7,远端组为28.8±26.9(P=0.8)。近端组TUG为9.0±2.7秒,中段组为9.0±3.5秒,远端组为8.5±2.0秒(P=0.67)。近端骨折组FSST为10.7±2.5秒,中段为10.3±3.8秒,远端为8.9±1.8秒(P=0.5)。EQ-5D指数值在远端最高(0.72),近端最低(0.55),中段骨折组为0.70(P=0.001)。EQ-5D视觉模拟评分在近端(65)和中段(82.3)之间有显著差异(P=0.001),在远端(75)和近端(65)骨折组之间也有显著差异(P=0.001)。
本研究结果表明,胫骨近端、中段和远端复杂骨折之间的功能预后具有可比性。骨折后患者的行走能力与年龄相关的正常数据相当,但与65至80岁健康人群的行走能力相比,完成复杂任务更加困难且表现更佳。胫骨近端骨折患者在至少一个功能水平和/或一个健康维度上的残疾程度明显更高。
瑙德JJ,曼吉拉MA,伯克霍尔茨F,环形外固定治疗复杂胫骨骨折后的功能预后和生活质量:胫骨近端、中段和远端骨折的比较。创伤肢体重建策略2021;16(1):32 - 40。