Patel Raahil, McCarthy Kevin, Christensen Joseph, Jacobs Bonamico, Karsch Jordan, Sephien Andrew, Matson Christopher, Sanders Roy W, Mir Hassan Riaz
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of South Florida, 5 Tampa General Circle, HMT 710, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA.
Florida Orthopaedic Institute, 13020 N Telecom Parkway, Tampa, FL, 33637, USA.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Feb;34(2):959-965. doi: 10.1007/s00590-023-03728-2. Epub 2023 Oct 1.
To analyze differences in union, complication rates and cost from surgical fixation of distal fibula fractures with fibular plating implants.
In total, 380 adult patients from 2012 to 2015 treated with 12 fibular plates from 4 different manufacturers utilized by 9 surgeons were retrospectively reviewed. They were stratified into a conventional one-third tubular fibular plate group, pre-contoured anatomic locking plate group, or a heterogeneous group including 3.5-mm reconstruction, one-third tubular locking, composite, and limited compression plates. The outcomes included failure of fixation, deep infection requiring debridement, time to union, anatomic reduction, superficial infection, hardware removal, and post-traumatic arthritis. Plate and screw costs were calculated from hospital billing records.
Pre-contoured locking plates were used in older, female patients with a greater number of comorbidities. Open injuries and OTA 44B fractures were more likely to be an indication for pre-contoured plates. There was no difference noted in time to union between the different plating groups. Risk factors for deep infection requiring debridement included a history of tobacco use, open fractures, and pre-contoured locking plates relative to the conventional plating group. The pre-contoured plating group was on average $586 more expensive compared to the conventional group.
Pre-contoured locking plates achieved similar radiographic outcomes compared to conventional plates with an increased risk of complications and higher cost. Surgeons should consider their choice of implant based on the patient's fracture pattern, underlying comorbidities, and risk for infection.
分析使用腓骨钢板植入物手术固定腓骨远端骨折在骨折愈合、并发症发生率及成本方面的差异。
回顾性分析了2012年至2015年间380例成年患者,这些患者接受了9位外科医生使用的来自4个不同制造商的12种腓骨钢板治疗。他们被分为传统三分之一管状腓骨钢板组、预塑形解剖锁定钢板组或异质组,异质组包括3.5毫米重建钢板、三分之一管状锁定钢板、复合钢板和有限加压钢板。观察指标包括固定失败、需要清创的深部感染、骨折愈合时间、解剖复位、浅表感染、内固定取出以及创伤后关节炎。钢板和螺钉成本根据医院计费记录计算。
预塑形锁定钢板用于年龄较大、合并症较多的女性患者。开放性损伤和OTA 44B骨折更有可能是使用预塑形钢板的指征。不同钢板组之间在骨折愈合时间上没有差异。需要清创的深部感染的危险因素包括吸烟史、开放性骨折以及与传统钢板组相比的预塑形锁定钢板。预塑形钢板组平均比传统组贵586美元。
与传统钢板相比,预塑形锁定钢板在影像学结果上相似,但并发症风险增加且成本更高。外科医生应根据患者的骨折类型、潜在合并症和感染风险来考虑植入物的选择。