Suppr超能文献

II型和III型齿突骨折的非手术治疗:费城颈托与 Halo 背心的比较。

Nonoperative management of Types II and III odontoid fractures: the Philadelphia collar versus the halo vest.

作者信息

Polin R S, Szabo T, Bogaev C A, Replogle R E, Jane J A

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville, USA.

出版信息

Neurosurgery. 1996 Mar;38(3):450-6; discussion 456-7. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199603000-00006.

Abstract

The nonoperative management of patients with Types II and III fractures of the odontoid process consists of a prolonged course of cervical immobilization. The need for rigid fixation, demonstrated by the routine use of the halo vest in many institutions, has never been rigorously substantiated. We retrospectively analyzed our results with the nonsurgical management of odontoid fractures to ascertain whether cranial fixation affected overall outcome. Fifty-four patients managed at the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville, VA, between 1976 and 1994 were studied. All 18 patients with Type III fractures (5 treated in the collar, 18 in the halo vest) demonstrated fracture healing and late stability. Among 36 individuals with Type II fractures, 20 were treated in the halo vest and 16 were managed in the Philadelphia collar or similar orthoses. The overall rate of late surgical intervention, the stability to flexion and extension, and the rate of bony fracture healing were not statistically different between the methods of immobilization. The rate of bony union was not significantly higher in the halo vest group (74 versus 53%), even though patients managed in the Philadelphia collar were significantly older than those in the halo vest (mean, 68 versus 44 yr). In general, nonsurgical management of Type III odontoid fractures was recommended, accompanied by use of a cervical orthosis. The determination of operative versus nonoperative treatment for Type II fractures was made on the basis of fracture anatomy, patient age, other associated injuries, and patient preference. The lack of a significant difference in the need for late surgical procedures or late instability, improved patient comfort with the cervical orthosis, and elimination of the risk of halo-related complications favored the use of the rigid cervical orthosis in the majority of these cases.

摘要

齿状突Ⅱ型和Ⅲ型骨折患者的非手术治疗包括长时间的颈部固定。许多机构常规使用头环背心来证明的坚固固定的必要性,从未得到严格证实。我们回顾性分析了齿状突骨折非手术治疗的结果,以确定颅骨固定是否会影响总体结果。对1976年至1994年期间在弗吉尼亚大学健康科学中心(弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔)治疗的54例患者进行了研究。所有18例Ⅲ型骨折患者(5例使用颈托治疗,18例使用头环背心治疗)均显示骨折愈合和后期稳定性。在36例Ⅱ型骨折患者中,20例使用头环背心治疗,16例使用费城颈托或类似矫形器治疗。固定方法之间的后期手术干预总体发生率、屈伸稳定性和骨折愈合率在统计学上没有差异。头环背心组的骨愈合率并不显著更高(74%对53%),尽管使用费城颈托治疗的患者比使用头环背心治疗的患者年龄显著更大(平均年龄分别为68岁和44岁)。一般而言,推荐对Ⅲ型齿状突骨折进行非手术治疗,并使用颈椎矫形器。Ⅱ型骨折手术与非手术治疗的决定基于骨折解剖结构、患者年龄、其他合并损伤以及患者偏好。后期手术需求或后期不稳定方面缺乏显著差异、颈椎矫形器提高了患者舒适度以及消除了与头环相关并发症的风险,这些因素有利于在大多数此类病例中使用坚固的颈椎矫形器。

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