首页> 外文期刊>Injury >A retrospective analysis of comminuted intra-articular fractures of the tibial plafond: Open reduction and internal fixation versus external Ilizarov fixation.
【24h】

A retrospective analysis of comminuted intra-articular fractures of the tibial plafond: Open reduction and internal fixation versus external Ilizarov fixation.

机译:胫骨平台粉碎性粉碎性骨折的回顾性分析:切开复位内固定术与伊利扎洛夫外固定术。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Intra-articular fractures of the tibial plafond are complex injuries which continue to challenge orthopaedic surgeons in achieving anatomic reduction, while allowing early weight bearing and return to activity. Although a wide range of treatment options has been described for fixation of pilon fractures, the unique characteristic of each injury makes it difficult to advocate a general method of choice. We have attempted to compare a subset of AO/OTA type C pilon fractures treated either by a staged procedure of external fixation and conversion to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus definitive external Ilizarov fixation. Between 1998 and 2004, 42 patients admitted to our level 1 trauma centre underwent either procedure and were followed prospectively. Twenty-eight patients were treated with ORIF and 14 were treated by Ilizarov ring fixator. The outcome measures included time to union, as well as the rates of union, nonunion, malunion and infection. Although the ORIF group had a longer time to heal, the rates of nonunion, malunion and infection were lower compared to the Ilizarov group. However, these differences between the groups were not statistically significant. Thus, based on these results, no clinical recommendation can be made as to which procedure is better and safer for the patient. Future prospective randomised trials are required to determine with more scientific accuracy the optimal treatment strategy for these challenging injuries.
机译:胫骨骨的关节内骨折是复杂的损伤,继续使整形外科医生面临解剖复位的挑战,同时允许早期承重并恢复活动。尽管已描述了多种治疗钉骨骨折的治疗选择,但是每种损伤的独特特征使得难以倡导选择一般方法。我们试图比较通过分阶段的外固定和开放复位复位内固定(ORIF)与确定的伊利扎洛夫外固定治疗的AO / OTA C型pilon骨折的子集。在1998年至2004年之间,有42例进入我们1级创伤中心的患者接受了这两种手术,并且均接受了随访。 28例接受ORIF治疗,14例接受Ilizarov环固定器治疗。结果指标包括工会时间,工会,不工会,残废率和感染率。尽管ORIF组的愈合时间较长,但与Ilizarov组相比,骨不愈合,畸形畸形和感染的发生率较低。但是,两组之间的这些差异在统计上并不显着。因此,基于这些结果,无法就哪种手术对患者更好,更安全提出临床建议。需要未来的前瞻性随机试验,以更科学的准确性确定这些具有挑战性的损伤的最佳治疗策略。

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