Suppr超能文献

儿童1型开放性骨折的非手术治疗与手术治疗

Nonoperative versus operative management of pediatric type 1 open fractures.

作者信息

Schauer Kevin, Lis Dylan, Lutnick Ellen, Harte Lauren, Haider M Nadir, Doak Jeremy

机构信息

University at Buffalo, State University New York, Buffalo, USA.

出版信息

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2025 Apr 13;35(1):158. doi: 10.1007/s00590-025-04277-6.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes, including complications and admission status of pediatric type I open fractures treated operatively versus nonoperatively, and to expand on a previously published analysis regarding the efficacy and safety of nonoperative treatment of pediatric type I open fractures by this group.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review via ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes correlated with type 1 open fractures of long bones at our Level 1 Children's Hospital from 2000 to 2020. Nonoperative management included IV antibiotics and closed reduction and immobilization under sedation. Operative management included formal I&D and ORIF. Demographics, antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and complications were compared using independent t test, and chi-squared or fisher exact test. Radiographic healing was analyzed.

RESULTS

Ninety patients met inclusion criteria [52 nonoperative (NO), 38 operative (OR)] (Table 1). Patients were treated predominately with cefazolin (NO 85.7%, OR 71.4%). Nonoperative patients were more frequently given oral antibiotics (NO 82.7%, OR 44.7%, p value 0.004). Those treated operatively were more frequently admitted (71.1% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). There were three deep infections in the operative cohort requiring repeat operative I&D (p 0.110) (Table 2). There were more incisional infections (7.9% vs. 1.9%), nonunion (2.6% vs. 0%), and ED visits/readmissions (10.5% vs. 3.8%) in the operative cohort. Loss of reduction was more common in the nonoperative cohort (9.6% vs. 5.2%), and refracture/peri-implant fracture in the operative (10.5% vs. 0%). Comparison of overall complications favored the nonoperative group (p = 0.037, Table 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonoperative management is a safe and effective treatment of pediatric type I open fractures, including decreased hospital admission and elimination of anesthesia risks.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study.

摘要

目的

比较手术治疗与非手术治疗小儿I型开放性骨折的结果,包括并发症和入院情况,并扩展该团队之前发表的关于小儿I型开放性骨折非手术治疗的疗效和安全性的分析。

方法

通过ICD-9和ICD-10编码对2000年至2020年期间在我们的一级儿童医院发生的与长骨I型开放性骨折相关的病历进行回顾性分析。非手术治疗包括静脉注射抗生素以及在镇静下进行闭合复位和固定。手术治疗包括正规的切开引流和切开复位内固定术。使用独立t检验以及卡方检验或Fisher精确检验对人口统计学、抗生素使用、住院情况和并发症进行比较。分析影像学愈合情况。

结果

90例患者符合纳入标准[52例非手术治疗(NO),38例手术治疗(OR)](表1)。患者主要接受头孢唑林治疗(非手术组85.7%,手术组71.4%)。非手术治疗的患者更常接受口服抗生素治疗(非手术组82.7%,手术组44.7%,p值0.004)。接受手术治疗的患者更常入院(71.1%对25%,p<0.001)。手术组有3例深部感染需要再次进行手术切开引流(p 0.110)(表2)。手术组的切口感染(7.9%对1.9%)、骨不连(2.6%对0%)以及急诊就诊/再次入院(10.5%对3.8%)更多。复位丢失在非手术组更常见(9.6%对5.2%),而手术组的再骨折/植入物周围骨折(10.5%对0%)更多。总体并发症的比较显示非手术组更具优势(p = 0.037,表3)。

结论

非手术治疗是小儿I型开放性骨折的一种安全有效的治疗方法,包括减少住院率和消除麻醉风险。

三级证据

回顾性比较研究。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验