Manninger Jenő, Baleseti Központ, Department of Pediatric Trauma Surgery, Budapest,Hungary.
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Paediatric Surgery, Traumatology, Urology and Paediatric Otolaryngology, Medical School, University of Pécs, Hungary.
Injury. 2024 Sep;55 Suppl 3:111403. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111403. Epub 2024 Sep 17.
In our retrospective study we compared the outcomes of paediatric lateral condyle fractures of the elbow fixed by bioabsorbable pins and tension-band sutures or by metallic tension-band with K-wires.
We reviewed the data of children operated on for lateral condyle fractures between 2010 and 2020. Patients were classified as follows: 1. fractures treated with metallic (KW group), 2. fractures treated with resorbable implants (BR group). We compared the distribution of age, sex and fracture type in each group. Operative times of the two techniques were also recorded and compared. We analysed the X-rays taken one year after the injury and measured the following parameters: presence of possible non-union, varus or valgus deviation, lateral spur formation. Patients whose follow-up period was less than one year were excluded. For categorical data, group comparisons were performed with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, depending on the sample size. The evaluation of discrete variables was performed with Mann-Whitney U test.
42 patients met the above criteria. We found 19 children in the Kirschner -wire + tansion band wire (KW) group and 23 in the Bioresorbable pin + tension band suture (BR) group. There were no significant differences between the study groups in terms of age, sex, left-right ratio, number of complications, operation time, number of Jacobs II and III cases or follow-up time. The operation time was on average 5 min longer in the bioresorbable group (K-wire mean = 62.1 min, Bioresorbable mean = 67 min), this difference, however, is not statistically significant (P = 0.177). In terms of minor and major complications, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. (P = 0.729).
We did not notice any difference between the complication rates of the two methods, so the real advantage of the absorbable implant technique is that no second intervention is necessary. The benefits of using biodegradable implants in various osteosynthesis techniques need further confirmation by randomised trials.
在我们的回顾性研究中,我们比较了儿童肘部外侧髁骨折的治疗结果,这些骨折分别通过可吸收钉和张力带缝线或金属张力带和 K 线固定。
我们回顾了 2010 年至 2020 年期间接受外侧髁骨折手术的儿童数据。患者分为以下几类:1. 金属(KW 组)治疗的骨折,2. 可吸收植入物(BR 组)治疗的骨折。我们比较了每组的年龄、性别和骨折类型分布。还记录了两种技术的手术时间并进行了比较。我们分析了受伤一年后拍摄的 X 光片,并测量了以下参数:可能的骨不连、内翻或外翻偏差、外侧骨刺形成的存在。排除随访时间少于一年的患者。对于分类数据,根据样本量使用卡方检验或 Fisher 确切检验进行组间比较。使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验评估离散变量。
42 名符合上述标准的患者入组。我们发现,在克氏针+张力带钢丝(KW)组中有 19 名儿童,在可吸收钉+张力带缝线(BR)组中有 23 名儿童。在年龄、性别、左右比例、并发症数量、手术时间、Jacobs II 和 III 型病例数量或随访时间方面,两组之间无显著差异。生物可吸收组的手术时间平均长 5 分钟(克氏针平均=62.1 分钟,生物可吸收平均=67 分钟),但这一差异无统计学意义(P=0.177)。在轻微和严重并发症方面,两组之间无统计学差异(P=0.729)。
我们没有注意到两种方法的并发症发生率有任何差异,因此可吸收植入物技术的真正优势是无需进行第二次干预。在各种骨愈合技术中使用可生物降解植入物的益处需要进一步通过随机试验来证实。