首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology >Lower limb lengthening: is there a difference in the lengthening index and infection rates of lengthening with external fixators, external fixators with intramedullary nails or intramedullary nailing alone? A systematic review of the literature
【24h】

Lower limb lengthening: is there a difference in the lengthening index and infection rates of lengthening with external fixators, external fixators with intramedullary nails or intramedullary nailing alone? A systematic review of the literature

机译:下肢加长:使用外固定架,仅使用髓内钉或仅使用髓内钉的外固定架的加长指数和感染率是否有所不同?对文献的系统回顾

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

A review of the current literature was undertaken to assess the lengthening index (LI) and infection rates found with different techniques of lower limb lengthening. We compared three methods of lengthening: external fixators, intramedullary nails and both methods used as a combined technique. Ten papers meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. The review found that by using either an ExFix with IMN or an IMN alone lengthening was achieved at twice the rate of ExFix alone. There were no infections recorded in the IMN group, 36.2% superficial and 2.5% deep in the ExFix group and 1.4% superficial and 5.5% deep in the ExFix + IMN group. When using LI and infection rates to compare techniques, the safest and most effective method of lower limb lengthening appears to be with IMN alone.
机译:对当前文献进行了回顾,以评估采用不同下肢加长技术发现的加长指数(LI)和感染率。我们比较了三种加长方法:外固定器,髓内钉和两种方法都用作组合技术。审查了十篇符合纳入标准的论文。该评论发现,通过同时使用带有IMN的ExFix或单独使用IMN,可以以单独ExFix速度的两倍实现加长。在IMN组中没有记录到感染,ExFix组中36.2%处浅层和2.5%深,在ExFix + IMN组中1.4%处浅层和5.5%深。当使用LI和感染率比较技术时,最安全,最有效的下肢加长方法似乎是仅使用IMN。

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