首页> 外文期刊>Journal of orthopaedic trauma >Deltoid Ligament Repair Versus Syndesmotic Fixation in Bimalleolar Equivalent Ankle Fractures
【24h】

Deltoid Ligament Repair Versus Syndesmotic Fixation in Bimalleolar Equivalent Ankle Fractures

机译:三角韧带修复与胫骨同侧踝骨折中的联合联合固定

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives:To compare the outcomes of bimalleolar equivalent ankle fractures treated with lateral malleolus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with transsyndesmotic fixation versus lateral malleolus ORIF with deltoid ligament repair.Design:Retrospective design.Setting:Single level I trauma center.Patients/Participants:Subjects with bimalleolar equivalent ankle fractures were eligible for enrollment. Patients with posterior or medial malleolar fractures and age <16 years were excluded. Twenty-seven total subjects met inclusion criteria. Fifteen patients were treated with lateral malleolus ORIF with transsyndesmotic fixation, whereas 12 were treated with lateral malleolus ORIF with deltoid ligament repair.Intervention:Lateral malleolus ORIF with transsyndesmotic fixation versus lateral malleolus ORIF with deltoid ligament repair.Main Outcome Measurements:Lower Extremity Function Scale, Foot and Ankle Disability Index, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale, Visual Analog Pain Scale, and overall function of lower extremity.Results:Univariate analysis of the outcome questionnaire variables demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. All patients in the syndesmotic fixation group underwent a subsequent procedure for removal of the syndesmotic implant. Additionally, there were 2 complications in the syndesmotic group that required repeat operative intervention.Conclusions:Repairing the deltoid ligament at the time of lateral malleolus fixation demonstrates subjective, functional, and radiologic outcomes that are comparable with lateral malleolus fixation with syndesmotic fixation for bimalleolar equivalent ankle fractures. The former avoids the costs and inherits surgical risks that occur during a subsequent operation for removal of the syndesmotic implant.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
机译:目的:比较经突触联合固定的外侧踝开放切开内固定术(ORIF)与经三角韧带修复的外侧踝ORIF相比双侧股骨头踝关节骨折的设计。设计:回顾性设计。参加者:患有双侧踝关节同等骨折的受试者符合入组条件。排除了后踝或内踝骨折且年龄<16岁的患者。共有27名受试者符合入选标准。十五例接受经耻骨突联合固定的外踝ORIF,十二例经三角韧带修复的外踝ORIF进行干预:干预:经穿刺联合固定的外踝ORIF与经三角韧带修复的外踝ORIF。主要结局指标:低位下肢功能,足踝残障指数,短肌骨骼功能评估,足踝结局评分,美国整形外科足踝学会踝-脚足量表,视觉模拟疼痛量表和下肢的整体功能。结果:对结果问卷变量进行单变量分析证明两组之间无统计学差异。下颌骨固定组中的所有患者均接受随后的手术,以去除下颌骨植入物。此外,在联合症组中有2处并发症需要重复手术干预。结论:外侧踝固定时修复三角肌韧带的主观,功能和放射学结果可与外侧踝固定与双侧髋臼同侧联合固定相媲美。脚踝骨折。前者避免了成本,并继承了在随后的手术中去除下颌骨植入物的手术风险。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