...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of orthopaedic trauma >The insertion of intramedullary nail locking screws without fluoroscopy: A faster and safer technique
【24h】

The insertion of intramedullary nail locking screws without fluoroscopy: A faster and safer technique

机译:无需透视即可插入髓内钉锁定螺钉:一种更快,更安全的技术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the accuracy, time, and radiation exposure during the insertion of intramedullary nail locking screws using either standard fluoroscopic assistance or an electromagnetic (EM)-based navigational system without fluoroscopy. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Level I academic trauma center. METHODS: Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (fluoroscopic assistance), consisted of standard freehand fluoroscopically assisted insertion of locking screws (OEC 9900; G.E. HealthCare, Waukesha, WI), whereas group 2 (EM), consisted of EM navigationally assisted insertion without fluoroscopy (SureShot; Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN). Technician arrival time, setup (SU) time, screw insertion (SI) time (seconds), fluoroscopy time (seconds), radiation exposure (mrads), and accuracy (hit or miss) were recorded for each screw. For group 1, the SU time was recorded as the time and radiation required to obtain "perfect circles" before insertion, and for group 2, the SU time was recorded as the time required to set up the navigational EM unit. Data collected regarding SI were then compared using standard analysis of variance. RESULTS: Forty-one locking screws were inserted in group 1, whereas 60 screws were inserted in group 2. Accuracy was 100% for both groups. For group 1, mean technician wait time was 77 seconds plus a mean perfect circle SU time of 105 seconds (9.2 mrads and 10 seconds of fluoroscopy). Mean SU time for group 2 was 94 seconds (no fluoroscopy). Mean insertion time was 342 seconds per screw for group 1 (32.9 mrads and 18 seconds of fluoroscopy) compared with 234 seconds per screw for group 2 (no fluoroscopy). These differences were statistically significant (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The use of EM navigation (SureShot; Smith & Nephew) for the insertion of intramedullary nail locking screws demonstrated accuracy similar to conventional fluoroscopic-guided insertion. However, EM-guided locking SI resulted in a significantly shorter total procedural time and completely eliminated radiation exposure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
机译:目的:本研究旨在比较使用标准荧光检查辅助工具或不使用荧光检查技术的基于电磁(EM)的导航系统,在插入髓内钉锁定螺钉期间的准确性,时间和辐射暴露。设计:前瞻性。地点:一级学术创伤中心。方法:将患者分为2组:第1组(透视辅助),由标准的徒手透视辅助插入锁定螺钉(OEC 9900; GE HealthCare,Waukesha,WI)组成;第2组(EM),由EM导航辅助组成无需透视检查即可插入(SureShot; Smith&Nephew,田纳西州孟菲斯)。记录每个螺钉的技术人员到达时间,设置(SU)时间,螺钉插入(SI)时间(秒),透视检查时间(秒),辐射暴露(mrads)和准确性(命中或未命中)。对于组1,将SU时间记录为在插入之前获得“完美圆”所需的时间和辐射,对于组2,将SU时间记录为设置导航EM单元所需的时间。然后,使用标准方差分析比较收集到的关于SI的数据。结果:第1组插入41个锁定螺钉,而第2组插入60个螺钉。两组的准确性均为100%。对于第1组,技术人员的平均等待时间为77秒,外加完美圆的平均SU时间为105秒(荧光检查法为9.2 mrads和10秒)。第2组的平均SU时间为94秒(无荧光检查)。第一组的平均插入时间为342秒/螺钉(32.9毫拉德,荧光透视18秒),而第二组的平均插入时间为234秒(无荧光透视)。这些差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.006)。结论:使用EM导航(SureShot; Smith&Nephew)插入髓内钉锁定螺钉的准确性与常规荧光镜引导的插入相似。但是,EM引导的锁定SI导致总的程序时间明显缩短,并且完全消除了辐射暴露。证据级别:治疗级别III。有关证据水平的完整说明,请参见《作者说明》。

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