Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Aug;50(4):1569-1575. doi: 10.1007/s00068-024-02495-x. Epub 2024 Mar 11.
The management of femur and tibia fractures resulting from gunshot injuries is a challenge for orthopedic surgeons. One-stage and two-stage treatments are applied according to the anatomical location and severity of the injury. In this study, the importance of injury severity and anatomical location was evaluated in the choice of treatment method and its impact on prognosis in cases of lower extremity gunshot fractures.
A total of 124 patients who met the study criteria were evaluated. They were grouped separately according to the anatomical location of the injury (femur, n = 73; tibia, n = 51) and the surgical method (one-stage, n = 77; two-stage, n = 47). The demographic characteristics of the patients, fracture classification, presence of neurological or vascular damage at the time of diagnosis, anatomical location of the injury, surgical procedure, and follow-up time were recorded. The time of union and the presence of malunion were evaluated radiologically. Finally, patients were assessed clinically with the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) and leg length discrepancy (LLD) calculated through measurements made on lower extremity orthoroentgenograms.
The rate of vascular injury and the number of Gustilo-Anderson type IIIB and IIIC cases were significantly higher in the two-stage treatment group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000, respectively). The infection rate was also higher in the two-stage group; therefore, time to union was significantly longer (p = 0.004 and p = 0.05, respectively). LLD was higher among patients who received two-stage treatment (p = 0.015). According to the NISS scale used in clinical assessment, better scores were obtained for the one-stage group (p = 0.002). In comparisons made according to anatomical location, no significant difference was found between femur and tibia injuries.
Regardless of anatomical location and treatment method, injuries of higher severity such as Gustilo-Anderson type IIIB and IIIC are correlated with higher rates of complications such as vascular injury, postoperative infection, delayed union, and LLD. Furthermore, in cases of severe injuries, a two-stage approach is commonly favored.
对于骨科医生来说,处理因枪伤导致的股骨和胫骨骨折是一项挑战。根据损伤的解剖位置和严重程度,采用一期和二期治疗。本研究评估了损伤严重程度和解剖位置在治疗方法选择中的重要性及其对下肢枪伤骨折预后的影响。
共评估了符合研究标准的 124 名患者。根据损伤的解剖位置(股骨,n=73;胫骨,n=51)和手术方法(一期,n=77;二期,n=47)将患者分别分组。记录患者的人口统计学特征、骨折分类、诊断时是否存在神经或血管损伤、损伤的解剖位置、手术过程和随访时间。通过下肢正位 X 线片测量评估骨愈合时间和是否存在畸形愈合。最后,通过新损伤严重程度评分(NISS)和下肢长度差异(LLD)对患者进行临床评估,通过下肢正位 X 线片测量计算 NISS 和 LLD。
二期治疗组的血管损伤率和 Gustilo-Anderson ⅢB 和 III C 型病例数明显更高(p=0.001 和 p=0.000)。二期治疗组的感染率也更高,因此骨愈合时间明显更长(p=0.004 和 p=0.05)。二期治疗组的 LLD 更高(p=0.015)。根据临床评估中使用的 NISS 量表,一期治疗组的评分更好(p=0.002)。根据解剖位置进行比较,股骨和胫骨损伤之间没有显著差异。
无论解剖位置和治疗方法如何,Gustilo-Anderson Ⅲ B 和 III C 型等严重程度的损伤与血管损伤、术后感染、延迟愈合和 LLD 等并发症的发生率较高相关。此外,在严重损伤的情况下,通常更倾向于采用二期方法。