Suppr超能文献

髋臼骨折经皮螺钉固定与切开复位内固定的比较:一项关于全髋关节置换短期转换率和功能结果的配对研究。

Comparison of Percutaneous Screw Fixation to Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in Acetabular Fractures: A Matched Pair Study Regarding the Short-Term Rate of Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty and Functional Outcomes.

作者信息

Einhorn Stephanie, Höch Andreas, Osterhoff Georg, Josten Christoph, Kleber Christian, Pieroh Philipp

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2023 Feb 1;12(3):1163. doi: 10.3390/jcm12031163.

Abstract

Closed reduction and percutaneous internal fixation (CRPIF) for acetabular fractures was introduced as a less invasive alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for moderately displaced fractures. Currently, comparisons of ORIF and CRPIF outcomes are rare. Twenty-three patients treated with CRPIF were matched with patients treated with ORIF based on sex, age, and fracture classification. Surgery-dependent and -independent factors of the in-hospital stay, the conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and quality of life were assessed. The ORIF group had a higher preoperative fracture step ( = 0.04) and gull wing sign ( = 0.003) compared with the CRPIF group. Postoperatively, the gap and step size were not significantly different between the groups ( > 0.05). CRPIF required less time ( < 0.0001) and transfusions ( = 0.009) and showed fewer complications ( = 0.0287). Four patients were converted to THA (CRPIF, = 1; ORIF, = 3; = 0.155) because of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Functional outcomes and pain were similar in both groups ( > 0.05). The present study revealed less blood loss and a lesser extent of reduction in patients treated with CRPIF than in those treated with ORIF. The rates of conversion to THA and functional outcomes did not differ between CRPIF and ORIF. CRPIF appeared to be a valuable treatment option for selected patients.

摘要

髋臼骨折的闭合复位经皮内固定术(CRPIF)作为一种侵入性较小的方法被引入,用于治疗中度移位骨折,替代切开复位内固定术(ORIF)。目前,关于ORIF和CRPIF疗效比较的研究较少。对23例行CRPIF治疗的患者与行ORIF治疗的患者,根据性别、年龄和骨折分类进行匹配。评估了住院时间、全髋关节置换术(THA)转换率和生活质量等与手术相关和不相关的因素。与CRPIF组相比,ORIF组术前骨折台阶(P = 0.04)和鸥翼征(P = 0.003)更高。术后,两组间的间隙和台阶大小无显著差异(P > 0.05)。CRPIF所需时间更少(P < 0.0001)、输血更少(P = 0.009),并发症也更少(P = 0.0287)。4例患者因创伤后骨关节炎转换为THA(CRPIF组1例,ORIF组3例;P = 0.155)。两组的功能结局和疼痛情况相似(P > 0.05)。本研究显示,与接受ORIF治疗的患者相比,接受CRPIF治疗的患者失血量更少,复位程度更小。CRPIF组和ORIF组的THA转换率和功能结局无差异。CRPIF似乎是部分患者的一种有价值的治疗选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2a6f/9917484/60655ca989bd/jcm-12-01163-g001.jpg

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