【24h】

Removal of pectus bar fixed with absorbable vs metallic stabilizers.

机译:拆除用可吸收的与金属的稳定剂固定在一起的镜棒。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The removal of a pectus bar fixed with a metallic stabilizer can be time consuming and tedious, because in some cases, fibrous or new bone tissue covers the metallic devices. Our study aims to evaluate bar removal in 2 groups of patients with metallic and absorbable stabilizers, respectively. METHODS: A total of 162 patients underwent mini-invasive repair of pectus excavatum. In all the cases, the bar was stabilized with at least 1 stabilizer on the left side. We used both metallic and absorbable stabilizers. Absorbable stabilizers were preferred when they were available in the market. The bar was removed in 30 patients. We compared removal of the bar in 17 absorbable stabilizers with those bars fixed with 18 metallic stabilizers. Length of incision, operative time, postoperative pain, and complications were studied. RESULTS: No differences between metallic and absorbable stabilizers were found in terms of postoperative pain and complications. However, removal of the bar fixed with an absorbable stabilizer required a significantly smaller incision and shorter operative time. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of the pectus bar fixed with an absorbable stabilizer was simpler and faster.
机译:背景/目的:移除用金属稳定器固定的肛门杆可能既费时又乏味,因为在某些情况下,纤维或新的骨组织会覆盖金属装置。我们的研究旨在评估分别有金属和可吸收稳定剂的两组患者的棒去除效果。方法:总共162例患者接受了微创性的胸腔切除术。在所有情况下,都使用左侧的至少1个稳定器来稳定杆。我们同时使用了金属稳定剂和可吸收稳定剂。当可吸收稳定剂在市场上出售时,它们是优选的。 30名患者中的酒吧被拆除。我们比较了去除17种可吸收稳定剂中的皂条与固定有18种金属稳定剂的皂条的情况。研究切口长度,手术时间,术后疼痛和并发症。结果:就术后疼痛和并发症而言,金属和可吸收稳定剂之间没有差异。但是,卸下固定有可吸收稳定剂的导条需要明显较小的切口和较短的手术时间。结论:用可吸收的稳定剂固定的肛门棒的拆除更简单,更快捷。

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