...
首页> 外文期刊>Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica >Exchanging reamed nailing versus augmentative compression plating with autogenous bone grafting for aseptic femoral shaft nonunion: a retrospective cohort study
【24h】

Exchanging reamed nailing versus augmentative compression plating with autogenous bone grafting for aseptic femoral shaft nonunion: a retrospective cohort study

机译:无菌股骨干不愈合与自体植骨置换扩孔钉与增强加压板的对比:一项回顾性队列研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of exchanging reamed nailing (ERN) and augmentative compression plating (ACP) with autogenous bone grafting (BG) for the treatment of aseptic femoral shaft nonunion secondary to the treatment of intramedullary nailing (IMN). Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed for 178 patients (180 cases) of aseptic femoral shaft nonunion secondary to first treatment of IMN. All cases were fixed with either ERN (n=87) or ACP (n=93). In the ERN group, 42 cases (48.3%) were nonisthmal nonunions and 45 (51.7%) were isthmal nonunions. In the ACP group, 46 cases (49.5%) were nonisthmal nonunions, and 47 (50.5%) were isthmal nonunions. Operation time, blood loss, time to union, union rate, volume of drainage, time to renonunion, and complication rate were compared between the 2 groups. Results: All patients were followed up, with a mean period of 4.1 years (range: 1–7.1 years). Bone union occurred in 93/93 cases (100%) in the ACP group versus 75/87 cases (86.2%) in the ERN group (odds ratio [OR]=3.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8–14). Of the 12 cases involved with renonunion in the ERN group, 10 were nonisthmal nonunions, and 2 were isthmal nonunions with cortical bone defect >3 cm. The union time, blood loss, and complication rate of the ERN group were significantly higher than those of the ACP group (p=0.028, p=0.035, and p=0.021, respectively). No significant difference was found in the average operation time of the 2 groups (p=0.151). However, for the nonisthmal nonunions, a significant difference was found between the ERN and ACP groups (p=0.018). Conclusion: ACP with autogenous BG can obtain a higher bone union rate and shorter time to union than ERN in the treatment of aseptic femoral shaft nonunion after failed IMN. Especially for nonisthmal femoral shaft nonunions or isthmal nonunions with larger bone defects, ACP with autogenous BG can be more advantageous than ERN for patients. A future prospective observational study should be conducted. DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0404
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较自体骨移植(BG)与扩髓钉(ERN)和增强加压钢板(ACP)交换治疗继发于髓内钉(IMN)治疗的无菌股骨干不愈合的疗效)。方法:对178例IMN首次治疗后的无菌性股骨干不愈合患者进行了多中心回顾性研究(180例)。所有病例均用ERN(n = 87)或ACP(n = 93)固定。在ERN组中,有42例(48.3%)为非峡部不愈合,其中45例(51.7%)为峡部不愈合。在ACP组中,有46例(49.5%)为非峡部不愈合,其中47例(50.5%)为峡部不愈合。比较两组的手术时间,失血量,恢复时间,恢复率,引流量,重新结合时间和并发症发生率。结果:所有患者均获随访,平均随访时间为4.1年(范围:1-7.1年)。 ACP组93/93例(100%)发生骨愈合,而ERN组75/87例(86.2%)(赔率[OR] = 3.28,95%置信区间[CI] 0.8-14)。在ERN组的12例涉及骨不连的病例中,有10例为非峡部骨不连,其中2例为皮质骨缺损> 3 cm的峡部骨不连。 ERN组的联合时间,失血量和并发症发生率显着高于ACP组(分别为p = 0.028,p = 0.035和p = 0.021)。两组的平均手术时间无明显差异(p = 0.151)。但是,对于非等距骨不连,在ERN组和ACP组之间发现了显着差异(p = 0.018)。结论:自体BG ACP治疗IMN失败后的无菌性股骨干不愈合比骨愈合率更高,而结合时间更短。特别是对于非峡部股骨干不愈合或具有较大骨缺损的峡部不愈合,具有自体BG的ACP对患者而言比ERN更有利。应该进行未来的前瞻性观察研究。 DOI:10.3944 / AOTT.2015.14.0404

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号