Open versus arthroscopic fusion of the subtalar joint: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Acta Orthopaedica Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.2340/17453674.2024.42448
Mark Stegeman, Nathalie Pruijn, Saskia Susan, Petra J C Heesterbeek, Jan Willem K Louwerens
{"title":"Open versus arthroscopic fusion of the subtalar joint: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Mark Stegeman, Nathalie Pruijn, Saskia Susan, Petra J C Heesterbeek, Jan Willem K Louwerens","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2024.42448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> Our primary aim was to compare the early complication rate (< 6 weeks postoperatively) after open or arthroscopic fusion of the subtalar joint. Secondary outcomes included late complications (> 6 weeks postoperatively), function, pain, and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients listed for subtalar joint fusion were included and randomized for open or arthroscopic fusion. Complications were assessed at scheduled visits at 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Functional scores, pain scores, and patient satisfaction were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and PROMS at baseline (preoperatively), 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The scores were compared over time between the groups using Fisher's exact test and linear mixed models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 51 patients were included between 2013 and 2020, of whom 25 were allocated to open and 26 to arthroscopic fusion. 3 early complications (2 sural nerve lesions, 1 infection) occurred in the open fusion group (12%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3-32) and 3 (2 wound healing problems, 1 screw exchange) in the arthroscopic group (12%; CI 3-31). Late complications included screw removal (n = 5) in the open fusion group versus screw removal (n = 5), non-union (n = 2), bony prominence/calcification removal (n = 1), sural nerve lesion (n = 1), lesion of the calcaneal branch of the tibial nerve (n = 1), complex regional pain syndrome type II (n = 1), and secondary plantar fasciitis (n = 1) in the arthroscopic fusion group. No superiority of arthroscopic over open fusion was found regarding early (P = 1.0) and late complications (P = 0.2), function and pain scores, and patient satisfaction over 12 months Conclusion: Arthroscopic fusion did not result in fewer early complications compared with open fusion. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"95 ","pages":"723-729"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632194/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.42448","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose:  Our primary aim was to compare the early complication rate (< 6 weeks postoperatively) after open or arthroscopic fusion of the subtalar joint. Secondary outcomes included late complications (> 6 weeks postoperatively), function, pain, and patient satisfaction.

Methods:  In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients listed for subtalar joint fusion were included and randomized for open or arthroscopic fusion. Complications were assessed at scheduled visits at 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Functional scores, pain scores, and patient satisfaction were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and PROMS at baseline (preoperatively), 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The scores were compared over time between the groups using Fisher's exact test and linear mixed models.

Results:  51 patients were included between 2013 and 2020, of whom 25 were allocated to open and 26 to arthroscopic fusion. 3 early complications (2 sural nerve lesions, 1 infection) occurred in the open fusion group (12%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3-32) and 3 (2 wound healing problems, 1 screw exchange) in the arthroscopic group (12%; CI 3-31). Late complications included screw removal (n = 5) in the open fusion group versus screw removal (n = 5), non-union (n = 2), bony prominence/calcification removal (n = 1), sural nerve lesion (n = 1), lesion of the calcaneal branch of the tibial nerve (n = 1), complex regional pain syndrome type II (n = 1), and secondary plantar fasciitis (n = 1) in the arthroscopic fusion group. No superiority of arthroscopic over open fusion was found regarding early (P = 1.0) and late complications (P = 0.2), function and pain scores, and patient satisfaction over 12 months Conclusion: Arthroscopic fusion did not result in fewer early complications compared with open fusion. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the approaches.

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
开放与关节镜下距下关节融合:一项随机对照试验。
背景和目的:我们的主要目的是比较开放或关节镜下距下关节融合术的早期并发症发生率(术后< 6周)。次要结局包括晚期并发症(术后6周)、功能、疼痛和患者满意度。方法:在这项前瞻性随机对照试验中,纳入了列出的距下关节融合术患者,并随机分为开放或关节镜融合术。术后2周、6周、3月、6月和12月随访评估并发症。在术后3、6和12个月评估功能评分、疼痛评分和患者满意度,在基线(术前)、3、6和12个月评估PROMS。使用Fisher精确检验和线性混合模型来比较各组之间的分数。结果:2013年至2020年纳入51例患者,其中25例进行开放,26例进行关节镜融合。开放融合组早期并发症3例(2例腓肠神经病变,1例感染)(12%;95%可信区间[CI] 3-32)和3例(2例伤口愈合问题,1例螺钉置换)关节镜组(12%;CI 3-31)。后期并发症包括开放融合组螺钉取出(n = 5)与螺钉取出(n = 5)、骨不愈合(n = 2)、骨突出/钙化取出(n = 1)、腓肠神经病变(n = 1)、胫神经跟支病变(n = 1)、复杂区域疼痛综合征II型(n = 1)、关节镜融合组继发性足底筋膜炎(n = 1)。在早期并发症(P = 1.0)和晚期并发症(P = 0.2)、功能和疼痛评分以及患者12个月的满意度方面,关节镜下融合术并没有比开放融合术更少的早期并发症。两种方法的次要结局无显著差异。
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
相关文献
Risk factors for revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty. A population-based study of 80,756 primary procedures in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry.
IF 3.7 2区 医学Acta OrthopaedicaPub Date : 2010-10-01 DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2010.519908
Alma B Pedersen, Jens E Svendsson, Søren P Johnsen, Anders Riis, Søren Overgaard
Low implantation volume, comorbidities, male sex and implantation of constrained TKA identified as risk factors for septic revision in knee arthroplasty: A register-based study from the German Arthroplasty Registry
IF 3.3 2区 医学Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, ArthroscopyPub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.12182
Dominik Szymski, Nike Walter, Josina Straub, Yinan Wu, Oliver Melsheimer, Alexander Grimberg, Volker Alt, Arnd Steinbrueck, Markus Rupp
来源期刊
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
期刊最新文献
Day-case hip and knee arthroplasty does not increase healthcare system contacts: a prospective multicenter study in a public healthcare setting. Time trends in spine surgery in Italy: a nationwide, population-based study of 1,560,969 records of administrative health data from 2001 to 2019. Association of socioeconomic status on return to work following primary total hip arthroplasty: a Danish population-based cohort study on 9,431 patients from 2008-2018. Incidence of and survival after surgery for metastatic spine disease: a nationwide register-based study between 1997 and 2020 from Finland. Ulnar shortening osteotomy for ulna impaction syndrome with positive ulnar variance: retrospective outcome analysis.
×
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