...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the Egyptian Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery >Plating versus wiring for fixation of traumatic rib and sternal fractures
【24h】

Plating versus wiring for fixation of traumatic rib and sternal fractures

机译:电镀与布线固定外伤性肋骨和胸骨骨折

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The fracture of ribs is a common injury presenting to trauma centers and hospitals. Along the years, a lot of methods have been introduced to stabilize the rib and sternal fractures, as most of studies reported that the treatment of these cases is warranted. In spite of the large number of methods for fixation introduced; no definitive method has been presented yet. Methods From July 2015 to November 2016, the data of 30 patients with rib or sternal fractures or both who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were collected prospectively. Those patients were assigned into two groups; (group A) the fractures were fixed by plates and (group B) were fixed by stainless steel wires. The choice of method of fixation depended on surgeon's experience. The variables evaluated included stability of chest wall, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay and ventilator days. Results The chest wall stability in (group A) was achieved in 100% of the patients, while in (group B) it was achieved in 60% of patients. Intensive care unit stay for group A was 9?±?4.37 days and for group B 13.8?±?7.61 (p?=?0.031). Hospital stay for group A was 11.6 ± 5.27 days and for group B 17.1 ± 6.77 (p = 0.021). Ventilator days for (group A) were 6.38?±?3.83 days, while in (group B) 10.3?±?8.82days, however this difference was statistically insignificant (p?=?0.129). Conclusions Plating of rib and sternal fractures had better outcome than wiring, regarding better chest wall stability and restoration of chest contour; also it had shorter intensive care unit, hospital and ventilator days.
机译:背景技术肋骨骨折是创伤中心和医院常见的伤害。多年来,已引入了许多方法来稳定肋骨和胸骨骨折,因为大多数研究报告称对这些病例进行治疗是必要的。尽管引入了大量固定方法;尚未提出确定的方法。方法前瞻性收集2015年7月至2016年11月符合入选标准的30例肋骨或胸骨骨折或两者兼有的患者的资料。这些患者被分为两组。 (A组)骨折用钢板固定,(B组)用不锈钢丝固定。固定方法的选择取决于外科医生的经验。评估的变量包括胸壁的稳定性,重症监护病房的住院时间,住院时间和呼吸机天数。结果(A组)的胸壁稳定性达到100%的患者,而(B组)的胸壁稳定性达到60%的患者。 A组的重症监护病房住院时间为9±±4.37天,B组为13.8±±7.61天(p≥0.031)。 A组的住院时间为11.6±5.27天,B组的住院时间为17.1±6.77(p = 0.021)。 (A组)的通气天数为6.38±±3.83天,而(B组)的通气天数为10.3±±8.82天,但是该差异在统计学上是不显着的(p≤0.129)。结论胸骨和胸骨骨折的电镀效果优于布线,因为胸壁稳定性更好,胸部轮廓得以恢复。重症监护室,医院和呼吸机的时间也较短。

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