Chen Wei-Qing, Chen Ye-Hai, Shu Jun-Rong, Xu Bao-Ping, Chen Bao-Lin, Yang Jun-Tao, Hu Xiu-Po
Department of Orthopaedics, Dongyang Huayuantian Hospital, Dongyang 322121, Zhejiang, China.
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2025 Jul 25;38(7):716-21. doi: 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.20240137.
To compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of staged open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and external fixation combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF) in the treatment of high-energy Pilon fractures.
A retrospective selection was conducted on 78 patients diagnosed with high-energy tibial Pilon fractures who received treatment between January 2021 and October 2023. These patients were categorized into the staged ORIF group and the EFLIF group according to their respective treatment protocols. The staged ORIF group comprised 48 patients, including 29 males and 19 females, aged from 33 to 53 years old with a mean age of (43.25±4.67) years old. The time from injury to treatment averaged (6.54±2.21) hours. All patients received staged ORIF treatment. The EFLIF Group consisted of 30 patients, including 18 males and 12 females, aged from 36 to 54 years old with a mean age of (43.37±3.24) years old. The time from injury to treatment averaged (6.87±1.96) hours. All patients received EFLIF treatment. The recovery of ankle joint function, fracture reduction quality, fracture healing time, and surgical-related indicators between two groups were observed and compared six months after surgery. Additionally, the postoperative complications of the two groups were recorded.
Both groups of patients were followed up and the duration ranged from 6 to 12 months, with an average of (8.97±1.26) months. At 6-month postoperative follow-up, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score in the ORIF group was (83.15±20.93), which did not show a statistically significant difference compared to the EFLIF group (81.88±20.67), >0.05. The excellent and good rate of fracture reduction in the staged ORIF group was 33.33% (16/48), which did not show a statistically significant difference compared to the EFLIF group (30.00%, 9/30), >0.05. The hospitalization duration and fracture healing time in the staged ORIF group were (16.57±1.25) days and (12.14±1.15) weeks, respectively. When compared to the EFLIF group, which demonstrated a hospitalization duration of (15.97±2.16 ) days and a fracture healing time of (12.36±1.17) weeks, no statistically significant differences were observed (>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss in the staged ORIF group was (76.54±11.65) ml, which was significantly higher than that in the EFLIF group (70.15±10.29) ml, and the difference was statistically significant (<0.05). The incidence of superficial tissue infection was 2.08%(1/48), which was significantly lower than that observed in the EFLIF group at 16.67% (5/30), and this difference was statistically significant (<0.05).
Both staged ORIF and EFLIF were effective treatment options for high-energy closed Pilon fractures of the tibia. However, regarding the prevention of superficial tissue infection, staged ORIF demonstrates superior risk control compared to EFLIF.
比较分期切开复位内固定术(ORIF)与外固定联合有限内固定术(EFLIF)治疗高能量Pilon骨折的临床疗效和并发症发生率。
回顾性选取2021年1月至2023年10月间确诊并接受治疗的78例高能量胫骨Pilon骨折患者。根据各自的治疗方案,将这些患者分为分期ORIF组和EFLIF组。分期ORIF组48例,其中男性29例,女性19例,年龄33至53岁,平均年龄(43.25±4.67)岁。受伤至治疗的时间平均为(6.54±2.21)小时。所有患者均接受分期ORIF治疗。EFLIF组30例,其中男性18例,女性12例,年龄36至54岁,平均年龄(43.37±3.24)岁。受伤至治疗的时间平均为(6.87±1.96)小时。所有患者均接受EFLIF治疗。术后6个月观察并比较两组患者踝关节功能恢复情况、骨折复位质量、骨折愈合时间及手术相关指标。此外,记录两组患者术后并发症情况。
两组患者均获随访,随访时间6至12个月,平均(8.97±1.26)个月。术后6个月随访时,ORIF组美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)评分为(83.15±20.93),与EFLIF组(81.88±20.67)相比,差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。分期ORIF组骨折复位优良率为33.33%(16/48),与EFLIF组(30.00%,9/30)相比,差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。分期ORIF组住院时间和骨折愈合时间分别为(16.57±1.25)天和(12.14±1.15)周。与EFLIF组相比,EFLIF组住院时间为(15.97±2.16)天,骨折愈合时间为(12.36±1.17)周,差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。分期ORIF组术中出血量为(76.54±11.65)ml,明显高于EFLIF组(70.15±10.29)ml,差异有统计学意义(<0.05)。浅表组织感染发生率为2.08%(1/48),明显低于EFLIF组的16.67%(5/30),差异有统计学意义(<0.05)。
分期ORIF和EFLIF都是治疗高能量闭合性胫骨Pilon骨折的有效方法。然而,在预防浅表组织感染方面,分期ORIF与EFLIF相比显示出更好的风险控制。