Suppr超能文献

现代外固定环与内固定治疗严重开放性胫骨骨折的随机临床试验(FIXIT 研究)。

Modern External Ring Fixation Versus Internal Fixation for Treatment of Severe Open Tibial Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial (FIXIT Study).

出版信息

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022 Jun 15;104(12):1061-1067. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.01126. Epub 2022 Mar 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Modern external ring fixation has been hypothesized to reduce complications requiring hospital readmission compared with internal fixation when treating patients with high-energy open tibial shaft fractures. In this study, the 1-year probability of a major limb complication was compared between external and internal fixation of severe open tibial fractures.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized clinical trial included patients 18 to 64 years of age with severe open tibial shaft fractures randomly assigned to either modern external ring fixation (n = 127) or internal fixation (n = 133). The primary outcome was a major limb complication within 365 days after randomization; these complications included amputation, infection, a soft-tissue problem, nonunion, malunion, and a loss of reduction/implant failure.

RESULTS

Of 260 randomized patients, 254 were included in the final analysis. Their mean age (standard deviation) was 39 (13) years; 214 (84%) were men. The probability of at least 1 major limb complication was higher for external fixation (62.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 53.4% to 70.8%]) than internal fixation (43.7% [95% CI: 35.5% to 52.9%]), with a risk difference of 18.4% (95% CI: 5.8% to 30.4%); p = 0.005). The most notable difference was in loss of reduction/implant failure, the rate of which was higher for external fixation (risk difference: 14.4% [95% CI: 7.0% to 21.6%]; p = 0.002). There was no appreciable difference in the probability of deep infection between external fixation (26.1%) and internal fixation (29.7%) (risk difference: -3.5% [95% CI: -14.8% to 7.8%]; p = 0.54). There were also no appreciable differences in the probabilities of amputation, nonunion, soft-tissue problems, malunion, or fracture healing between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results argue against routine use of modern external ring fixation for the treatment of these severe open tibial fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

摘要

背景

当治疗高能开放性胫骨骨干骨折患者时,与内固定相比,现代外固定环固定被假设可以降低需要住院再次治疗的并发症的发生率。在这项研究中,比较了严重开放性胫骨骨折的外固定和内固定治疗后 1 年内主要肢体并发症的发生概率。

方法

这项多中心随机临床试验纳入了 18 至 64 岁的严重开放性胫骨骨干骨折患者,随机分为现代外固定环固定组(n=127)或内固定组(n=133)。主要结局为随机分组后 365 天内发生的主要肢体并发症;这些并发症包括截肢、感染、软组织问题、骨不连、畸形愈合和复位丢失/内固定失败。

结果

在 260 名随机患者中,254 名患者纳入最终分析。他们的平均年龄(标准差)为 39(13)岁,214 名(84%)为男性。外固定组(62.1%[95%置信区间(CI):53.4%至 70.8%])的至少 1 种主要肢体并发症的发生概率高于内固定组(43.7%[95% CI:35.5%至 52.9%]),风险差异为 18.4%(95% CI:5.8%至 30.4%);p=0.005)。最显著的差异是在复位丢失/内固定失败方面,外固定组的发生率更高(风险差异:14.4%[95% CI:7.0%至 21.6%];p=0.002)。外固定组(26.1%)与内固定组(29.7%)深部感染的发生率无明显差异(风险差异:-3.5%[95% CI:-14.8%至 7.8%];p=0.54)。两组之间的截肢、骨不连、软组织问题、畸形愈合或骨折愈合的概率也没有明显差异。

结论

这些结果不支持常规使用现代外固定环固定治疗这些严重开放性胫骨骨折。

证据水平

治疗学 I 级。请参阅作者须知,以获取完整的证据水平描述。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验