Percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of medial malleolus fracture

IF 0.2 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Current Orthopaedic Practice Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1097/bco.0000000000001264
Mahmoud Elsayed Ali Abdelrazek, Mohammed Osama Hegazy, A. Zakaria
{"title":"Percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of medial malleolus fracture","authors":"Mahmoud Elsayed Ali Abdelrazek, Mohammed Osama Hegazy, A. Zakaria","doi":"10.1097/bco.0000000000001264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Medial malleolus fractures are common orthopedic injuries that require prompt and effective treatment. This study aimed to compare two treatment approaches, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF), for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults.\n \n \n \n This randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with isolated medial malleolus fracture who were assigned to either the ORIF or CRPF group using a simple randomization method. Surgical procedures were performed as described in the study, and post-operative management included splinting and regular clinical assessments.\n \n \n \n Intraoperatively, CRPF demonstrated significantly lower operative time (33±5 min vs. 50±11 min, P < 0.001) but higher X-ray exposure (33±9 vs. 25±7, P=0.014) compared to ORIF. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of delayed union, pain with movement, soft tissue infection, or time to full union.\n \n \n \n Both ORIF and CRPF are viable treatment options for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. CRPF offers advantages in terms of shorter operative time but requires increased fluoroscopy usage.\n \n \n \n Level IV.\n","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/bco.0000000000001264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medial malleolus fractures are common orthopedic injuries that require prompt and effective treatment. This study aimed to compare two treatment approaches, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF), for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. This randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with isolated medial malleolus fracture who were assigned to either the ORIF or CRPF group using a simple randomization method. Surgical procedures were performed as described in the study, and post-operative management included splinting and regular clinical assessments. Intraoperatively, CRPF demonstrated significantly lower operative time (33±5 min vs. 50±11 min, P < 0.001) but higher X-ray exposure (33±9 vs. 25±7, P=0.014) compared to ORIF. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of delayed union, pain with movement, soft tissue infection, or time to full union. Both ORIF and CRPF are viable treatment options for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. CRPF offers advantages in terms of shorter operative time but requires increased fluoroscopy usage. Level IV.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮固定与切开复位内固定治疗内侧踝骨骨折
内侧踝骨骨折是常见的骨科损伤,需要及时有效的治疗。本研究旨在比较成人孤立性踝关节内侧骨折的两种治疗方法,即开放复位内固定术(ORIF)和闭合复位经皮固定术(CRPF)。 这项随机对照试验纳入了 30 名孤立性踝关节内侧骨折患者,采用简单的随机方法将他们分配到 ORIF 组或 CRPF 组。手术方法如研究中所述,术后管理包括夹板固定和定期临床评估。 术中,CRPF与ORIF相比,手术时间明显缩短(33±5分钟 vs. 50±11分钟,P<0.001),但X光暴露更高(33±9 vs. 25±7,P=0.014)。术后,两组在延迟愈合、活动疼痛、软组织感染或完全愈合时间方面无明显差异。 对于成人孤立性内踝骨折,ORIF 和 CRPF 都是可行的治疗方案。CRPF 在缩短手术时间方面具有优势,但需要增加透视的使用。 四级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating Patient Perceptions of Smartphone Use for Active and Passive Collection of Health Data National basketball association slam dunk contest participation does not lead to increased injury risk or adversely affect player performance JournalADE: Creation and validation of a novel program for automated data extraction (ADE) to assess authorship gender representation Percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of medial malleolus fracture WALANT office based endoscopic cubital tunnel release
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1