首页> 外文期刊>Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research >Deltoid-split or deltopectoral approaches for the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures?
【24h】

Deltoid-split or deltopectoral approaches for the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures?

机译:三角肌劈开或三角肌入路治疗肱骨近端移位骨折?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Background: Proximal humeral fractures are mainly associated with osteoporosis and are becoming more common with the aging of our society. The best surgical approach for internal fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures is still being debated. Questions/purposes: In this prospective randomized study, we aimed to investigate whether the deltoid-split approach is superior to the deltopectoral approach with regard to (1) complication rate; (2) shoulder function (Constant score); and (3) pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) for internal fixation of displaced humeral fractures with a polyaxial locking plate. Methods: We randomized 120 patients with proximal humeral fractures to receive one of these two approaches (60 patients for each approach). We prospectively documented demographic and perioperative data (sex, age, fracture type, hospital stay, operation time, and fluoroscopy time) as well as complications. Followup examinations were conducted at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively, including radiological and clinical evaluations (Constant score, activities of daily living, and pain [VAS]). Baseline and perioperative data were comparable for both approaches. The sample size was chosen to provide 80% power, but it reached only 68% as a result of the loss of followups to detect a 10-point difference on the Constant score, which we considered the minimum clinically important difference. Results: Complications or reoperations between the approaches were not different. Eight patients in the deltoid-split group (14%) needed surgical revisions compared with seven patients in the deltopectoral group (13%; p = 1.00). Deltoid-split and deltopectoral approaches showed similar Constant scores 12 months postoperatively (Deltoid-split 81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74-87 versus deltopectoral 73; 95% CI, 64-81; p = 0.13), and there were no differences between the groups in terms of pain at 1 year (deltoid-split 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4 versus deltopectoral 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7-3.2; p = 0.14). No learning-curve effects were noted; fluoroscopy use during surgery and function and pain scores during followups were similar among the first 30 patients and the next 30 patients treated in each group. Conclusions: The treatment of proximal humeral fractures with a polyaxial locking plate is reliable using both approaches. For a definitive recommendation for one of these approaches, further studies with appropriate sample size are necessary.
机译:背景:肱骨近端骨折主要与骨质疏松症相关,并且随着我们社会的老龄化越来越普遍。肱骨近端移位移位骨折内固定的最佳手术方法仍在争论中。问题/目的:在这项前瞻性随机研究中,我们旨在调查在(1)并发症发生率方面,三角肌劈裂术是否优于三角肌分割术。 (2)肩部功能(恒定评分); (3)使用多轴锁定板固定肱骨移位骨折的疼痛(视觉模拟评分[VAS])。方法:我们将120例肱骨近端骨折患者随机分为这两种方法之一(每种方法60例)。我们前瞻性地记录了人口统计学和围手术期数据(性别,年龄,骨折类型,住院时间,手术时间和透视检查时间)以及并发症。术后6周,6个月和12个月进行随访检查,包括放射学和临床评估(恒定评分,日常生活活动和疼痛[VAS])。两种方法的基线和围手术期数据均具有可比性。选择样本量可提供80%的功效,但由于缺乏随访以检测出Constant评分的10分差异(我们认为这是临床上的最小差异),结果仅达到68%。结果:两种方法之间的并发症或再次手术没有差异。三角肌分割组中有8例患者(14%)需要进行手术翻修,而三角肌分割组中有7例患者(13%; p = 1.00)。三角肌分割术和三角肌方法在术后12个月显示出相似的恒定评分(Deltoid分割法81; 95%置信区间[CI]为74-87,三角肌73为95%CI,64-81; p = 0.13),并且两组在1年时的疼痛方面无差异(三角肌劈裂1.8; 95%CI,1.2-1.4与三角肌2.5; 95%CI,1.7-3.2; p = 0.14)。没有注意到学习曲线的影响;在每组中,前30例患者和后续的30例患者在手术期间使用透视检查的方法以及随访期间的功能和疼痛评分相似。结论:两种方法均采用多轴锁定钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折是可靠的。对于这些方法之一的明确建议,有必要使用适当的样本量进行进一步研究。

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