Service de chirurgie orthopédique et de traumatologie de l'appareil locomoteur, cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
Service de chirurgie orthopédique et de traumatologie de l'appareil locomoteur, cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2022 Sep;108(5):103326. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103326. Epub 2022 May 17.
Management of distal radius fractures typically includes a period of immobilization with either a cast or a splint. Traditional immobilization methods can have inconveniences such as poor resistance to water and poor ventilation, which can result in skin maceration, skin breakdown, and infection in case of wetting.
3D-printed splints could potentially overcome the inconveniences of traditional casts. In this report, we compare a 3D-printed splint (3DPS) with a conventional removable splint (CRS) and a traditional cast in a randomized clinical trial.
Thirty-four patients with a recent distal radius fracture were randomized to receive either a 3DPS or a CRS. An additional subset of nine patients benefitted from both splints for a direct comparison. Primary outcomes were measured based on a subjective assessment questionnaire and a clinical outcome.
There was no statistical difference in the subjective assessment between the 3DPS and the CRS groups. Based on the clinical assessment, patients with the 3DPS experienced more pressure-related pain. Among the sub-sample of nine patients that benefited from both splints, eight preferred the CRS and one chose the 3DPS. The 3DPS was judged better for perspiration, coolness, and water resistance.
The 3DPS was successful in solving shortcomings of conventional splints and cast (better ventilation, less perspiration, less warmness, more durability and water resistance). However, the rigid structure and sharp edges made it less comfortable, overall favouring the CRS.
II.
桡骨远端骨折的治疗通常包括使用石膏或夹板进行一段时间的固定。传统的固定方法存在不便之处，例如对水的抵抗力差和通风不良，这可能导致皮肤浸渍、皮肤破损和感染。
3D 打印夹板有可能克服传统石膏的不便。在本报告中，我们在一项随机临床试验中比较了 3D 打印夹板（3DPS）与传统可移动夹板（CRS）和传统石膏。
34 名近期桡骨远端骨折的患者被随机分配接受 3DPS 或 CRS。另有 9 名患者受益于两种夹板，用于直接比较。主要结果基于主观评估问卷和临床结果进行测量。
3DPS 和 CRS 组之间的主观评估没有统计学差异。根据临床评估，使用 3DPS 的患者压力相关疼痛更多。在受益于两种夹板的 9 名患者的亚样本中，8 人更喜欢 CRS，1 人选择 3DPS。3DPS 在排汗、凉爽和耐水性方面被认为更好。
3DPS 成功解决了传统夹板和石膏的缺点（更好的通风、更少的排汗、更少的闷热感、更高的耐用性和耐水性）。然而，其刚性结构和锐利边缘使其舒适度降低，总体上更倾向于 CRS。
II。
