Suppr超能文献

肱骨骨干骨折治疗中髓内钉加压固定与钢板加压固定的比较:一项前瞻性队列研究。

Compression nailing versus compression plating for management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus: A prospective cohort study.

作者信息

Wadhwani Jitendra, Seth Aditya, Siwach Ramchander, Paul Shagnik, Bhardwaj Abhishek, Singh Sunayana

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, Pt. B. D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kalpana Chawla Medical College, Karnal, Haryana, India.

出版信息

J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025 Mar 31;65:102994. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2025.102994. eCollection 2025 Jun.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Compression plate osteosynthesis is the preferred treatment for diaphyseal humerus fractures. In contrast, intramedullary interlocking nailing offers many advantages but lacks in providing compression across the fracture site. We aimed to do a prospective cohort study to compare the compression plating (CP) technique with the novel compression nailing (CN) technique for diaphyseal humeral fractures.

METHODS

The study was performed with a total of 32 patients included in the study, who were further divided into two groups: Group CN (n = 16) and Group CP (n = 16). An external compression device was used along with a standard antegrade humeral nailing system to achieve compression across the fracture site. The Rodriguez-Merchan criteria and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score at six months were used for the functional evaluation in these patients.

RESULTS

In this study cohort, the mean age was 35 ± 12.02 years. The total mean operative time was 85.86 ± 10.62 min for Group CN and 87.69 ± 3.82 min for Group CP (p value = 0.48, student 't' test), and the total mean blood loss during surgery was 81.25 ± 9.21 ml for Group CN and 202.88 ± 16.86 ml for Group CP (p value = 0.001, student 't' test). The mean duration of follow-up in Group CN was 31.31 ± 7.99 weeks, while in Group CP it was 31.56 ± 7.30 weeks. According to Rodriguez-Merchan criteria, 12 had (75 %) excellent, three (18.75 %) had moderate, and one (6.25 %) had poor results. Whereas in Group CP, there were 13 (81.25 %) excellent results, two (12.5 %) moderate results, and one (6.25 %) poor result (p-value = 0.887, chi-square test).

CONCLUSION

The compression nailing group was found to have an upper hand in terms of significantly less blood loss and less soft tissue dissection required as compared to compression plating. With compression nailing, we were able to achieve controlled compression across the fracture site.

摘要

背景

加压钢板接骨术是肱骨干骨折的首选治疗方法。相比之下,髓内交锁钉固定有许多优点,但在骨折部位提供加压方面有所欠缺。我们旨在进行一项前瞻性队列研究,比较加压钢板(CP)技术与新型加压髓内钉(CN)技术治疗肱骨干骨折的效果。

方法

本研究共纳入32例患者,进一步分为两组:CN组(n = 16)和CP组(n = 16)。使用外部加压装置与标准顺行肱骨钉系统相结合,以实现骨折部位的加压。采用Rodriguez-Merchan标准和6个月时的美国肩肘外科医师(ASES)评分对这些患者进行功能评估。

结果

在本研究队列中,平均年龄为35 ± 12.02岁。CN组的总平均手术时间为85.86 ± 10.62分钟,CP组为87.69 ± 3.82分钟(p值 = 0.48,学生t检验),手术期间CN组的总平均失血量为81.25 ± 9.21毫升,CP组为202.88 ± 16.86毫升(p值 = 0.001,学生t检验)。CN组的平均随访时间为31.31 ± 7.99周,而CP组为31.56 ± 7.30周。根据Rodriguez-Merchan标准,CN组有12例(75%)结果为优,3例(18.75%)为中等,1例(6.25%)为差。而CP组有13例(81.25%)结果为优,2例(12.5%)为中等,1例(6.25%)为差(p值 = 0.887,卡方检验)。

结论

与加压钢板相比,加压髓内钉组在出血量显著减少和所需软组织分离较少方面具有优势。通过加压髓内钉,我们能够在骨折部位实现可控加压。

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