Remiger A R, Magerl F
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Injury. 1994;25 Suppl 3:S-C15-29. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(94)90043-4.
The pinless external fixator was intended as a stable, temporary, minimally invasive fixator for severe tibial fractures ensuring safer conversion to an intramedullary nail. An in vitro study showed that the pinless fixator was mechanically not as stiff as the conventional AO tubular device, the main problem being low axial stiffness. This study involving initial clinical trials with the pinless fixator on tibial fractures in St. Gall is based on the experimental work and previous clinical experience of the main author. From June 1992 to June 1994 10 tibial fractures (eight II degrees and III degrees open, one closed with compartment syndrome, one infected non-union) were temporarily stabilized with a pinless fixator. In another patient a calcaneal traction device was applied. The pinless fixator was applied immediately in eight cases and three times as a secondary measure. All patients were scheduled for a secondary change of treatment. The tibiae were stabilized with four clamps and one anterior rod. The clamps were inserted via transverse stab incisions. Intraoperatively the pinless fixator was easy to handle and complications did not occur. Seven different surgeons needed an average of 20 minutes for insertion. Postoperative care was the same as for conventional fixators. Six patients were treated secondarily with an i.m. nail, three with an external fixator on average after 12 days. One patient died on day 1. The pinless fixator failed twice in one patient (incorrect insertion, fall). Reversible pain in the tendons of the foot extensor muscles was noticed. One superficial clamp track infection was seen. All clamps were reused more than three times. The pinless fixator is stable enough for temporary fracture fixation of the tibia in a four clamp one bar construction. A prerequisite for stability is the proper application technique ("grab test", rocking movements). Weight-bearing should be limited to a minimum and needs a compliant patient. The application technique is easy to learn suggesting that the pinless fixator could be an ideal tool for emergency stabilization. The primary application of this fixator leaves all further treatment modalities open (repeated debridements, evaluation of the open fracture). It may also be of particular value to many clinicians working with reamed nails as their only secondary treatment option for open tibial fractures.
无针外固定器旨在作为一种稳定、临时、微创的固定器,用于严重胫骨骨折,确保更安全地转换为髓内钉。一项体外研究表明,无针固定器在机械性能上不如传统的AO管状装置坚固,主要问题是轴向刚度低。这项涉及在圣加仑对胫骨骨折使用无针固定器进行初步临床试验的研究,是基于主要作者的实验工作和先前的临床经验开展的。从1992年6月至1994年6月,10例胫骨骨折(8例Ⅱ度和Ⅲ度开放性骨折,1例闭合性骨折伴骨筋膜室综合征,1例感染性骨不连)用无针固定器进行了临时固定。另1例患者应用了跟骨牵引装置。无针固定器在8例中立即应用,3例作为二次措施应用。所有患者均计划进行二次治疗更换。胫骨用4个夹具和1根前杆进行固定。夹具通过横向小切口插入。术中无针固定器易于操作,未发生并发症。7位不同的外科医生平均插入时间为20分钟。术后护理与传统固定器相同。6例患者二期接受髓内钉治疗,3例平均在12天后接受外固定器治疗。1例患者在第1天死亡。无针固定器在1例患者中失败了两次(插入不当、摔倒)。发现足伸肌肌腱有可逆性疼痛。出现1例浅表夹具通道感染。所有夹具重复使用超过3次。无针固定器在四夹具一杆结构中对胫骨骨折进行临时固定足够稳定。稳定性的一个先决条件是正确的应用技术(“抓握试验”,摇摆动作)。负重应限制在最低限度,且需要患者配合。应用技术易于学习,表明无针固定器可能是紧急稳定的理想工具。这种固定器的初次应用使所有进一步的治疗方式都可行(重复清创、评估开放性骨折)。对于许多仅将扩髓钉作为开放性胫骨骨折二次治疗选择的临床医生来说,它可能也具有特殊价值。