首页> 外文期刊>BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders >Treatment of open tibial diaphyseal fractures by external fixation combined with limited internal fixation versus simple external fixation: a retrospective cohort study
【24h】

Treatment of open tibial diaphyseal fractures by external fixation combined with limited internal fixation versus simple external fixation: a retrospective cohort study

机译:通过外固定治疗胫骨膜炎骨膜骨折与有限的内部固定与简单的外固定:回顾性队列研究

获取原文
           

摘要

The treatment of open tibial shaft fractures is challenging. External fixation (EF) is comparatively safe in treating these open injuries, meanwhile it has the advantages of easy application, minimal additional disruption, and convenient subsequent soft tissue repair. Nevertheless, its application is accompanied by a series of problems in alignment and bone healing. Therefore, limited internal fixation (LIF), such as cortical screws, has been used based on the external fixator for better therapeutic effect. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of EF combined with LIF and simple EF in the management of open tibial shaft fractures, evaluating the efficacy and safety of using the combined technique in treating such fractures. From January 2012 to December 2016, patients with open tibial shaft fractures treated with EF with or without LIF augmentation were identified. A total of 152 patients were included in the analysis, and there were 85 patients in the simple external fixation group and 67 patients in the EF-LIF group. General assessment indicators included the direct cost of hospitalization and the times of first surgery, full weight bearing, and complete union. Infections and complications in union or limb alignment were compared as primary outcomes. Additionally, the number of patients who changed the fixation system for various reasons were analysed. Effective follow-up of all participants for statistical analysis was obtained. The follow-up time averaged 17.15?months (range: 12.00 to 24.00?months) in the EF group and 16.20?months (range: 12.00 to 19.00?months) in the EF-LIF group. Combined fixation provided shortened time to bear full weight and achieve complete bone union, while requiring additional first surgery time. No significant difference was found in infection rates or direct cost of hospitalization. Delayed union and non-union in the EF-LIF group were significantly decreased (20.9% versus 40.0, 1.5% versus 14.1%, p??0.05). In limb alignment, patients with combined fixation exhibited reduced malreduction, loss of reduction, and malunion. In terms of secondary fixation, the EF-LIF group showed a markedly lower incidence (5.8% versus 34.1%, p??0.001). Compared with simple EF, combined fixation is an effective and safe alternative for management of open tibial diaphyseal fractures. It provides superior initial reduction, better stability and decreases the risk of inferior alignment and delayed union without increasing the risk of infection.
机译:狭窄的胫骨骨折的处理是挑战性的。外部固定(EF)在治疗这些开放伤害方面相对安全,同时它具有易于应用的优点,额外的破坏性,以及随后的随后的软组织修复。尽管如此,它的应用伴随着一系列关于对齐和骨愈合的问题。因此,基于外固定器使用了有限的内固定(如皮质螺钉,例如皮质螺钉,以便更好的治疗效果。本研究的目的是将EF的结果与LiF和简单的EF联合在狭窄的胫骨轴骨折管理中,评估使用组合技术治疗这种骨折的功效和安全性。从2012年1月到2016年12月,鉴定了用ef或不带来的ef治疗的胫骨轴骨折患者。分析中共有152名患者,在简单的外部固定组和67例EF-LIF组患者中有85名患者。一般性评估指标包括入院的直接成本和第一部手术,全重轴承和完整的联盟。将联合或肢体对准的感染和并发症与主要结果进行比较。此外,分析了因各种原因改变固定系统的患者的数量。获得所有参与者的统计分析的有效后续行动。 EF集团的后续时间平均为17.15个月(范围:12.00至24.00?月份),16.20个月(范围:12.00至19.00?月)在EF-LIF集团中。结合固定提供了缩短的时间来承受全重量并实现完全骨头联盟,同时需要额外的首次手术时间。在感染率或入院的直接成本中没有发现显着差异。 EF-LIF组中的延迟联合和非unun显着降低(20.9%,比40.0,1.5%对14.1%,p?<0.05)。在肢体对齐中,组合固定患者表现出降低缩略,减少损失和羊驼。在二次固定方面,EF-LIV组发病率明显较低(5.8%,比34.1%,p≤≤00.001)。与简单的EF相比,组合固定是一种有效且安全的胫骨膜炎骨折管理的替代品。它提供了卓越的初始减少,更好的稳定性,降低了劣质对准和延迟联盟的风险,而不会增加感染风险。

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