Suppr超能文献

使用加压夹和单平面外固定器进行膝关节融合术以治疗感染。

Knee arthrodesis using a compression clamp and a single-plane external fixator to treat infection.

机构信息

Service de chirurgie orthopédique, hôpital Trousseau, CHRU de Tours, avenue de la République, Chambray-lès-Tours, 37044 Tours cedex 9, France; Faculté de Médecine, Université de Tours, Tours, France.

Service de chirurgie orthopédique, hôpital Trousseau, CHRU de Tours, avenue de la République, Chambray-lès-Tours, 37044 Tours cedex 9, France; Faculté de Médecine, Université de Tours, Tours, France.

出版信息

Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2022 Sep;108(5):103330. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103330. Epub 2022 May 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In patients with knee infection, arthrodesis by external fixation is a limb-salvage procedure appropriate in highly selected patients. No hardware that might lead to infection is left in situ. However, the fusion rate is limited. Use of a device that applies compression in the coronal plane has been suggested in combination with sagittal external fixation to increase the fusion rate but has not been the focus of published studies. The objectives of this retrospective study were to determine: 1) the fusion rate and, 2) the rate of infection eradication.

HYPOTHESIS

Knee arthrodesis using an external fixator and a compression clamp provides higher fusion rates compared to reports of external fixation without compression.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied 30 patients who underwent knee arthrodesis using external fixation and a compression clamp. The reason for arthrodesis was recurrent infection after total knee arthroplasty in 18 patients and septic arthritis in 12 patients. There were 16 females and 14 males with a mean age of 66.0±11.6 years (range, 30-83 years). Mean follow-up was 42.5±23.6 months (range, 24-106 months).

RESULTS

Fusion was achieved in 25 (83%) patients, after a mean of 7.5 months (range, 6-12 months). Of the 8 patients with severe bone loss (≤25% bone contact), 4 experienced non-union, compared to 1 of the 22 patients whose bone loss was moderate or mild (50% and >50% bone contact, respectively) (p=0.01). After at least 2 years of follow-up, the infection was eradicated in 28 (93%) patients. Complications occurred in 9 patients and consisted of pin-site infection managed by lavage (n=3), recurrent infection requiring revision surgery for debridement and lavage combined with material exchange and antibiotic therapy (n=2), and femoral shaft fracture (n=3) or traumatic fracture of the arthrodesis (n=1) treated by changing the clamp and fixator assembly.

DISCUSSION

The fusion rate achieved using this combined technique is high and better than obtained with external fixation alone. Our results confirm that infection eradication is obtained more often than with nailing. This one-stage, simple, reproducible procedure does not leave any foreign material in situ.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective observational cohort study.

摘要

背景

在膝关节感染的患者中,关节融合术通过外固定架是一种适用于高度选择患者的保肢手术。没有留下任何可能导致感染的内固定物。然而,融合率是有限的。使用在冠状面施加压力的设备与矢状面外固定架结合使用已被建议用于增加融合率,但这并不是已发表研究的重点。本回顾性研究的目的是确定:1)融合率,以及 2)感染消除率。

假设

使用外固定架和加压夹的膝关节融合术比没有加压的外固定术报告的融合率更高。

材料和方法

我们回顾性研究了 30 例接受膝关节融合术的患者,这些患者使用外固定架和加压夹。关节融合的原因是 18 例全膝关节置换术后复发感染和 12 例化脓性关节炎。女性 16 例,男性 14 例,平均年龄 66.0±11.6 岁(范围,30-83 岁)。平均随访 42.5±23.6 个月(范围,24-106 个月)。

结果

25 例(83%)患者在平均 7.5 个月(范围,6-12 个月)后融合。在 8 例严重骨质丢失(≤25%骨接触)的患者中,4 例发生骨不连,而在 22 例骨质丢失中度或轻度(分别为 50%和>50%骨接触)的患者中,仅 1 例发生骨不连(p=0.01)。至少 2 年随访后,28 例(93%)患者感染消除。9 例患者发生并发症,包括冲洗治疗的针道感染(n=3)、清创和冲洗联合材料置换和抗生素治疗的复发性感染需要 Revision 手术(n=2)、股骨干骨折(n=3)或融合骨折的创伤性骨折(n=1),通过更换夹和固定器组件进行治疗。

讨论

使用这种联合技术获得的融合率很高,优于单独使用外固定架。我们的结果证实,感染的消除比钉治疗更常见。这种一期、简单、可重复的手术不会在体内留下任何异物。

证据水平

IV,回顾性观察队列研究。

相似文献

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