桡骨头切除与桡骨头固定治疗肘关节可怕三联征损伤的比较

F. Mazhar, Hooman Shariatzadeh, Hanon Sadony, Hojjatollah Ebrahimy
{"title":"桡骨头切除与桡骨头固定治疗肘关节可怕三联征损伤的比较","authors":"F. Mazhar, Hooman Shariatzadeh, Hanon Sadony, Hojjatollah Ebrahimy","doi":"10.32598/jrosj.6.4.61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The optimal treatment of radial head component in the terrible triad injuries of the elbow is challenging. In this study, we compared the functional outcome and complication rates of radial head resection with radial head fixation in a terrible triad setting. Objectives: Comparison of radial head resection with radial head fixation in terrible triad. Methods: In the present retrospective study, the outcome of terrible triad injury in 41 patients, in whom the radial head component was managed with either radial head resection (n=28) or open reduction and internal fixation (n=13), was compared. The subjective assessments of the outcome included visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, ‎the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and ‎hand (DASH) score. The objective assessment of outcome included the evaluation of elbow range of motion (ROM) and elbow stability. Results: The mean±SD age of the patients was 39.2±10.2 years. The demographic characteristics of the patients of the two study groups were not statistically different. The mean supination/pronation arc of motion was not significantly different between the two ‏study groups (P=0.11). The mean flexion/extension arc of motion was significantly more in the fixation group (P=0.001). The mean MEPS and DASH scores were not ‏significantly different between the study groups (P=0.22 and P=0.49, respectively). The mean ‏VAS was significantly more in the fixation group (P=0.04). All the elbows were stable at the last follow-up. The postoperative complications (arthrosis and heterotopic ossification) were considerably more in the resection group. Conclusion: Although comparable at function, the present study favors the radial head fixation whenever possible to avoid the postoperative complications of radial head reaction.","PeriodicalId":286829,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Orthopedic Science","volume":"230 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Radial Head Resection With Radial Head Fixation in the Terrible Triad Injury of the Elbow\",\"authors\":\"F. Mazhar, Hooman Shariatzadeh, Hanon Sadony, Hojjatollah Ebrahimy\",\"doi\":\"10.32598/jrosj.6.4.61\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The optimal treatment of radial head component in the terrible triad injuries of the elbow is challenging. In this study, we compared the functional outcome and complication rates of radial head resection with radial head fixation in a terrible triad setting. Objectives: Comparison of radial head resection with radial head fixation in terrible triad. Methods: In the present retrospective study, the outcome of terrible triad injury in 41 patients, in whom the radial head component was managed with either radial head resection (n=28) or open reduction and internal fixation (n=13), was compared. The subjective assessments of the outcome included visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, ‎the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and ‎hand (DASH) score. The objective assessment of outcome included the evaluation of elbow range of motion (ROM) and elbow stability. Results: The mean±SD age of the patients was 39.2±10.2 years. The demographic characteristics of the patients of the two study groups were not statistically different. The mean supination/pronation arc of motion was not significantly different between the two ‏study groups (P=0.11). The mean flexion/extension arc of motion was significantly more in the fixation group (P=0.001). The mean MEPS and DASH scores were not ‏significantly different between the study groups (P=0.22 and P=0.49, respectively). The mean ‏VAS was significantly more in the fixation group (P=0.04). All the elbows were stable at the last follow-up. The postoperative complications (arthrosis and heterotopic ossification) were considerably more in the resection group. Conclusion: Although comparable at function, the present study favors the radial head fixation whenever possible to avoid the postoperative complications of radial head reaction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":286829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Orthopedic Science\",\"volume\":\"230 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Orthopedic Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32598/jrosj.6.4.61\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Orthopedic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32598/jrosj.6.4.61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:肘关节可怕三联征损伤桡骨头组件的最佳治疗具有挑战性。在这项研究中,我们比较了在可怕的三联征情况下桡骨头切除与桡骨头固定的功能结局和并发症发生率。目的:比较桡骨头切除与桡骨头固定治疗恐怖三联症的疗效。方法:回顾性分析41例可怕三联征损伤患者的预后,其中桡骨头部分采用桡骨头切除术(n=28)或切开复位内固定(n=13)。结果的主观评估包括疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)、梅奥肘部表现评分(MEPS)和手臂、肩膀和手的残疾(DASH)评分。结果的客观评估包括肘关节活动范围(ROM)和肘关节稳定性的评估。结果:患者平均±SD年龄为39.2±10.2岁。两组患者的人口学特征无统计学差异。两个研究组的平均旋前/旋前运动弧度无显著差异(P=0.11)。固定组的平均屈伸活动度明显增加(P=0.001)。MEPS和DASH平均评分在研究组之间无显著差异(P=0.22和P=0.49)。固定组平均VAS明显高于固定组(P=0.04)。最后一次随访时所有肘部均稳定。术后并发症(关节和异位骨化)在切除组明显更多。结论:虽然在功能上具有可比性,但本研究尽可能倾向于桡骨头固定,以避免术后桡骨头反应并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Radial Head Resection With Radial Head Fixation in the Terrible Triad Injury of the Elbow
Background: The optimal treatment of radial head component in the terrible triad injuries of the elbow is challenging. In this study, we compared the functional outcome and complication rates of radial head resection with radial head fixation in a terrible triad setting. Objectives: Comparison of radial head resection with radial head fixation in terrible triad. Methods: In the present retrospective study, the outcome of terrible triad injury in 41 patients, in whom the radial head component was managed with either radial head resection (n=28) or open reduction and internal fixation (n=13), was compared. The subjective assessments of the outcome included visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, ‎the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and ‎hand (DASH) score. The objective assessment of outcome included the evaluation of elbow range of motion (ROM) and elbow stability. Results: The mean±SD age of the patients was 39.2±10.2 years. The demographic characteristics of the patients of the two study groups were not statistically different. The mean supination/pronation arc of motion was not significantly different between the two ‏study groups (P=0.11). The mean flexion/extension arc of motion was significantly more in the fixation group (P=0.001). The mean MEPS and DASH scores were not ‏significantly different between the study groups (P=0.22 and P=0.49, respectively). The mean ‏VAS was significantly more in the fixation group (P=0.04). All the elbows were stable at the last follow-up. The postoperative complications (arthrosis and heterotopic ossification) were considerably more in the resection group. Conclusion: Although comparable at function, the present study favors the radial head fixation whenever possible to avoid the postoperative complications of radial head reaction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Long Low-profile Proximal Tibial Locking Plate for the Fixation of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Above the Prosthesis: A Pilot Study Corrective Osteotomy With K-Wire Fixation For the Treatment of Symptomatic Distal Radius Extra-Articular Malunion Assessment Methods of Knee Joint Arthrokinematics: A Review of Literature Treatment of Distal End Clavicle Fractures: Suture Fixation Versus Tension Band Wiring Evaluation of Carpal Malalignment Before and After Interpositional Bone Grafting for Treating Scaphoid Nonunion
×
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