Nitinol Compression Staple Versus Headless Compression Screw Fixation for Scaphoid Waist Fractures.

Eplasty Pub Date : 2024-08-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Adam M Kurland, Dominick V Congiusta, Ashley Ignatiuk, Abram E Kirschenbaum, Michael M Vosbikian, Irfan H Ahmed
{"title":"Nitinol Compression Staple Versus Headless Compression Screw Fixation for Scaphoid Waist Fractures.","authors":"Adam M Kurland, Dominick V Congiusta, Ashley Ignatiuk, Abram E Kirschenbaum, Michael M Vosbikian, Irfan H Ahmed","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are a variety of ways to surgically manage patients with scaphoid waist fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of union achieved with a nitinol compression staple versus that of a headless compression screw in the treatment of scaphoid waist fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of patients with middle-third scaphoid fractures treated surgically. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on fixation device: a nitinol compression staple or headless compression screw (HCS). Primary outcome was radiographic union. Secondary outcomes included time from surgery to union, development of avascular necrosis (AVN), complication rate, and need for revision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-one patients were included in the final analysis. The median follow-up time was 5.7 months. Twenty patients were treated with staples, 21 with HCS. Thirty-seven patients achieved union. All who failed to unite were treated with HCS. Eight patients had postoperative complications, including postoperative AVN, all of whom were in the HCS cohort. This treatment group had a higher rate of revision surgery as well. Staples required less time to achieve union and fewer weeks of immobilization. Postoperative scapholunate angles were similar between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fixation of scaphoid waist fracture with nitinol compression staples is at least as likely to achieve union as fixation with HCS in patients without prior surgical intervention. This treatment also demonstrated equivalent or better secondary outcomes, including postoperative AVN, complication and revision rates, time to union, and weeks immobilized.</p>","PeriodicalId":93993,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":"24 ","pages":"e47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520363/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There are a variety of ways to surgically manage patients with scaphoid waist fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of union achieved with a nitinol compression staple versus that of a headless compression screw in the treatment of scaphoid waist fractures.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with middle-third scaphoid fractures treated surgically. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on fixation device: a nitinol compression staple or headless compression screw (HCS). Primary outcome was radiographic union. Secondary outcomes included time from surgery to union, development of avascular necrosis (AVN), complication rate, and need for revision.

Results: Forty-one patients were included in the final analysis. The median follow-up time was 5.7 months. Twenty patients were treated with staples, 21 with HCS. Thirty-seven patients achieved union. All who failed to unite were treated with HCS. Eight patients had postoperative complications, including postoperative AVN, all of whom were in the HCS cohort. This treatment group had a higher rate of revision surgery as well. Staples required less time to achieve union and fewer weeks of immobilization. Postoperative scapholunate angles were similar between the groups.

Conclusions: Fixation of scaphoid waist fracture with nitinol compression staples is at least as likely to achieve union as fixation with HCS in patients without prior surgical intervention. This treatment also demonstrated equivalent or better secondary outcomes, including postoperative AVN, complication and revision rates, time to union, and weeks immobilized.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
镍钛诺加压钉与无头加压螺钉固定治疗肩胛骨腰部骨折
背景:手术治疗肩胛腰骨折患者的方法多种多样。本研究的目的是比较镍钛诺加压钉与无头加压螺钉在治疗肩胛腰骨折中的结合率:我们对手术治疗的肩胛骨中段骨折患者进行了回顾性研究。根据固定装置将患者分为两组:镍钛诺加压钉或无头加压螺钉(HCS)。主要结果为放射学结合。次要结果包括从手术到愈合的时间、发生血管性坏死(AVN)的情况、并发症发生率和翻修需求:41名患者被纳入最终分析。中位随访时间为 5.7 个月。20名患者接受了订书机治疗,21名患者接受了HCS治疗。37名患者实现了吻合。所有未能结合的患者都接受了 HCS 治疗。八名患者出现了术后并发症,包括术后 AVN,他们都属于 HCS 治疗组。该治疗组的翻修手术率也较高。缝合所需的时间更短,固定周数更少。两组患者术后肩胛骨角度相似:镍钛诺加压钉固定肩胛腰骨折与使用HCS固定相比,在未进行过手术干预的患者中,至少有同样的可能性达到粘连。这种治疗方法还显示出同等或更好的次要结果,包括术后反流性骨肿瘤、并发症和翻修率、骨折愈合时间和固定周数。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of Tissue Expanders Filled With Saline Versus Air on Longitudinal Breast Reconstruction Outcomes. Not a Jersey Finger - A Case of a Closed Traumatic Rupture of the Small Finger Flexor Digitorum Profundus Tendon at the Lumbrical Origin. Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interfaces for the Management of Symptomatic Non-extremity Neuropathic Pain and Neuromas. Clinical, Electrophysiological, and Intraoperative Analysis and Postoperative Success of Revision Surgery for Persistent and Recurrent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Coincidence of Brachial Plexus Upper Trunk and Long Thoracic Nerve Injuries in 50 Patients With Winged Scapula: Improvements in Shoulder Stability and Functional Movements After Decompression and Neurolysis.
×
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