首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of trauma >Treatment of clavicular aseptic nonunion: comparison of plating and intramedullary nailing techniques.
【24h】

Treatment of clavicular aseptic nonunion: comparison of plating and intramedullary nailing techniques.

机译:锁骨无菌性骨不连的治疗:比较电镀和髓内钉技术。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate and compare the effects of plating and intramedullary nailing in the treatment of clavicular aseptic nonunion. METHODS: Thirty-three consecutive patients with middle-third clavicular aseptic nonunions with previous nonoperative treatment were treated by plating (13 patients) and intramedullary nailing (20 patients) with supplementary cancellous bone grafting. The indications for such treatment were middle-third aseptic nonunions without previous operative treatment and with local pain or tenderness, deformity, or neurologic complaint. The choice of plating or intramedullary nailing was according to the surgeon's individual preference. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were followed for at least 1 year (range, 1-7 years; median, 3 years; plating, 11; intramedullary nailing, 18). The union rate was 81.8% (9 of 11) for plating and 88.9% (16 of 18) for intramedullary nailing (p = 0.35, Fisher's exact test). The union period was 4.0 +/- 1.3 months for plating and 4.1 +/- 1.1 months for intramedullary nailing (p = 0.80, unpaired Student's t test). The complication rate was 27.3% (3 of 11) for plating and 11.1% (2 of 18) for intramedullary nailing (p = 0.21, Fisher's exact test). There were no significant differences in other parameters. CONCLUSION: Intramedullary nailing may have a higher union rate with a lower complication rate than plating (p > 0.05). At least in common situations, it is not inferior to plating. Whenever possible, therefore, intramedullary nailing should be used preferentially to treat clavicular aseptic nonunion without previous operative treatment. Nevertheless, both techniques have relatively higher nonunion rates in the treatment of clavicular nonunion than in the treatment of other long-bone nonunions. Gentle handling of surrounding soft tissues to reduce bony fragments should be strictly executed.
机译:目的:这项回顾性研究的目的是调查和比较钢板和髓内钉治疗锁骨无菌性骨不连的效果。方法:对33例先有非手术治疗的中/第三期锁骨无菌性骨不连患者,采用钢板(13例)和髓内钉(20例)并补充松质骨移植治疗。此类治疗的适应症为中三分之一的无菌性骨不连,未曾进行过手术治疗,并且存在局部疼痛或压痛,畸形或神经系统不适。电镀或髓内钉的选择是根据外科医生的个人喜好。结果:29例患者至少随访1年(范围1-7年;中位3年;钢板11例;髓内钉18例)。钢板的联合率为81.8%(11中的9),而髓内钉的联合率为88.9%(18中的16)(p = 0.35,Fisher精确检验)。电镀的结合期为4.0 +/- 1.3个月,髓内钉的结合期为4.1 +/- 1.1个月(p = 0.80,未配对的学生t检验)。钢板的并发症发生率为27.3%(11分之3),而髓内钉的并发症发生率为11.1%(18之2)(p = 0.21,Fisher精确检验)。其他参数无显着差异。结论:髓内钉可能比钢板钉具有更高的结合率和更低的并发症发生率(p> 0.05)。至少在通常情况下,它不逊于电镀。因此,只要有可能,就应优先使用髓内钉治疗锁骨无菌性骨不连,而无需事先进行手术治疗。然而,与其他长骨骨不连的治疗相比,这两种技术在锁骨骨不连的治疗中具有相对较高的骨不连率。应严格执行对周围软组织的轻柔处理以减少骨碎片。

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