Percutaneous treatment of type C distal radius fractures using dual-external fixator.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Science Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jos.2024.07.004
Xiaofei Yu, Xu Zhang, Nan Li, Yadong Yu, Xiaoliang Yang
{"title":"Percutaneous treatment of type C distal radius fractures using dual-external fixator.","authors":"Xiaofei Yu, Xu Zhang, Nan Li, Yadong Yu, Xiaoliang Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.jos.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to introduce a potential alternative percutaneous treatment for AO types C1, C2, and C3 distal radius fractures using dual-external fixator (a no-bridging cemented-pin frame and a conventional wrist-bridging external fixator).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>From January 2018 to January 2021, 52 patients (52 distal radius fractures) were treated with dual-external fixator. For comparison, 61 patients (61 distal radius fractures) were treated with a plate and screw system. Wrist function was assessed using the Mayo Wrist Score. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Short Assessment of Patient Satisfaction. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fracture healing was achieved in all patients. At the final follow-up of 29 months (range, 24-34 months) vs 36 months (range, 26-39 months) (P > 0.05), the patients treated with dual-external fixator and a plate and screw system achieved mean ulnar deviations of 31° vs 29° (P < 0.05), mean Mayo Wrist Scores of 91.12 ± 5.98 vs 88.12 ± 7.54 (P < 0.05), and mean patient satisfaction scores of 23.42 ± 2.47 vs 23.04 ± 2.32 (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AO types C1, C2, and C3 distal radius fractures can be treated successfully using dual-external fixator. The technique is a potential alternative in addition to the conventional treatments.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IIa.</p>","PeriodicalId":16939,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2024.07.004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to introduce a potential alternative percutaneous treatment for AO types C1, C2, and C3 distal radius fractures using dual-external fixator (a no-bridging cemented-pin frame and a conventional wrist-bridging external fixator).

Materials and methods: From January 2018 to January 2021, 52 patients (52 distal radius fractures) were treated with dual-external fixator. For comparison, 61 patients (61 distal radius fractures) were treated with a plate and screw system. Wrist function was assessed using the Mayo Wrist Score. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Short Assessment of Patient Satisfaction. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Fracture healing was achieved in all patients. At the final follow-up of 29 months (range, 24-34 months) vs 36 months (range, 26-39 months) (P > 0.05), the patients treated with dual-external fixator and a plate and screw system achieved mean ulnar deviations of 31° vs 29° (P < 0.05), mean Mayo Wrist Scores of 91.12 ± 5.98 vs 88.12 ± 7.54 (P < 0.05), and mean patient satisfaction scores of 23.42 ± 2.47 vs 23.04 ± 2.32 (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: AO types C1, C2, and C3 distal radius fractures can be treated successfully using dual-external fixator. The technique is a potential alternative in addition to the conventional treatments.

Level of evidence: Level IIa.

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
使用双外固定器经皮治疗 C 型桡骨远端骨折。
研究背景本研究旨在介绍使用双外固定器(无桥接骨水泥钉框架和传统腕部桥接外固定器)治疗 AO C1、C2 和 C3 型桡骨远端骨折的潜在替代经皮治疗方法:2018年1月至2021年1月,52名患者(52例桡骨远端骨折)接受了双外固定器治疗。作为对比,61 名患者(61 例桡骨远端骨折)接受了钢板和螺钉系统治疗。腕关节功能采用梅奥腕关节评分进行评估。患者满意度采用 "患者满意度简短评估 "进行评估。A P 结果:所有患者的骨折均已愈合。在29个月(24-34个月)对36个月(26-39个月)的最终随访中(P>0.05),使用双外固定器和钢板螺钉系统治疗的患者的平均尺骨偏差为31°对29°(P 0.05):结论:使用双外固定器可成功治疗 AO C1、C2 和 C3 型桡骨远端骨折。结论:使用双外固定器可成功治疗 AO C1、C2 和 C3 型桡骨远端骨折,该技术是传统治疗方法之外的一种潜在替代方法:证据等级:IIa 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
Journal of Orthopaedic Science
Journal of Orthopaedic Science 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic Science is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. The journal publishes the latest researches and topical debates in all fields of clinical and experimental orthopaedics, including musculoskeletal medicine, sports medicine, locomotive syndrome, trauma, paediatrics, oncology and biomaterials, as well as basic researches.
期刊最新文献
Assessing subscapularis tears: Relationship between special tests and pain & tear severity. Analysis of orthopedic surgery-related incidents in operating rooms using a nationwide incident reporting database. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the kinesiophobia causes scale: A descriptive survey have undergone total knee arthroplasty in China. Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer versus open complete repair for symptomatic massive rotator cuff tear. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-29 and SF-36 instruments in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
×
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