首页> 外文期刊>Indian journal of orthopaedics >Treatment of Modified Mason Type III or IV Radial Head Fracture: Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Arthroplasty
【24h】

Treatment of Modified Mason Type III or IV Radial Head Fracture: Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Arthroplasty

机译:改良型梅森III或IV型Rad骨头骨折的治疗:切开复位内固定与人工关节成形术

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: The treatment of modified Mason Type III or IV fractures is controversial. Many authors report open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with reconstruction of the radial head, but others advocate radial head arthroplasty (RHA). This study compares the clinical and radiological outcomes of ORIF and RHA in modified Mason Type III or IV radial head fracture and evaluates correlations between prognostic factors and postoperative clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: 42 patients with modified Mason Type III or IV radial head fractures who were surgically treated between January 2010 and January 2014 were retrospectively analyzed (20 patients with RHA and 22 patients with ORIF group were selected). Clinically, the patient rated elbow evaluation (PREE), the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH), and the range of motion (ROM) were measured. Radiologically, plain radiographs and computed tomography scans were taken. Results: The mean PREE scores were 13.9 for the RHA group and 13.0 for the ORIF group, and mean DASH scores were 9.5 and 10.7, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant. When comparing ROM, the patients in the RHA group showed greater movement at all measured angles. In multiple regression analysis, age was the only variable significantly associated with both PREE and DASH. Conclusion: Overall, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes of modified Mason Type III or IV radial head fractures treated with ORIF or RHA. However, a subgroup of younger patients had better clinical outcomes with ORIF treatment. Therefore, ORIF should be the First line of treatment, particularly if the reduction is possible.
机译:背景:改良的梅森III或IV型骨折的治疗存在争议。许多作者报告了open骨重建术的开放复位和内固定(ORIF),但另一些人则主张head骨头置换术(RHA)。这项研究比较了ORIF和RHA在改良的Mason III型或IV型radial骨头骨折中的临床和放射学结果,并评估了预后因素与术后临床结果之间的相关性。材料与方法:回顾性分析2010年1月至2014年1月间手术治疗的42例梅森III型或IV型梅森型radial骨头骨折患者的手术治疗(选择RHA患者20例,ORIF组22例)。临床上,对患者进行肘关节评估(PREE),手臂,肩膀和手部残疾(DASH)以及运动范围(ROM)的测量。放射学上,进行了平片和计算机断层扫描。结果:RHA组的平均PREE得分为13.9,ORIF组的平均PREE得分为13.0,DASH的平均得分分别为9.5和10.7。差异无统计学意义。比较ROM时,RHA组的患者在所有测量角度均显示出更大的运动。在多元回归分析中,年龄是与PREE和DASH均显着相关的唯一变量。结论:总体而言,ORIF或RHA治疗的改良Mason III或IV型radial骨头骨折的临床结局没有显着差异。但是,一小组较年轻的患者接受ORIF治疗的临床疗效更好。因此,ORIF应该是治疗的第一线,尤其是如果可能的话。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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