Gustilo-Anderson IIIb 开放性胫骨骨折手术固定后的疗效。

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta orthopaedica Belgica Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.52628/90.1.12387
S Cullen, D Flaherty, N Fitzpatrick, A Ali, I Elkhidir, A Pillai
{"title":"Gustilo-Anderson IIIb 开放性胫骨骨折手术固定后的疗效。","authors":"S Cullen, D Flaherty, N Fitzpatrick, A Ali, I Elkhidir, A Pillai","doi":"10.52628/90.1.12387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is no consensus as to the optimal skeletal fixation method for Gustilo-Anderson IIIb fractures. External fixation methods have previously shown higher rates of superficial infection, whilst internal fixation has shown higher risk of deep infection, but lower risk of other complications. This paper investigates outcomes in open tibial fractures based on fixation method. A retrospective review was performed for patients presenting to an ortho-plastic unit with GA IIIb tibial fractures between June 2013 and October 2021. 85 patients were identified. The most common implant was an intramedullary nail (IMN), used in 29 patients (34.1%); open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was performed in 16 patients (18.8%). 18 patients (21.2%) were definitively managed with a frame alone. Mean follow-up from was 18 months (2-77). Patients with ORIF needed a mean of 3.37 operations; it was 2.48 for IMN which was significantly different from frames at 5.00 (p=0.000). The mean time to bony union after definitive fixation was 11.4 months. This differed depending on the implant used for fixation, with ORIF at 7.1 months, 10.1 for IMN, and frames at 17.2 months; ORIF significantly differed from frames (p=0.009). Superficial infection was common, seen in 38.8% of patients, and only 3 patients (4%) developed deep infections involving metalwork, with no difference in rates of either based on fixation method This study supports that ORIF has faster healing times, with less time to union compared to frames. It also shows that no implant was superior to another in terms of outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":"90 1","pages":"83-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes following surgical fixation of Gustilo-Anderson IIIb open tibial fractures.\",\"authors\":\"S Cullen, D Flaherty, N Fitzpatrick, A Ali, I Elkhidir, A Pillai\",\"doi\":\"10.52628/90.1.12387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is no consensus as to the optimal skeletal fixation method for Gustilo-Anderson IIIb fractures. External fixation methods have previously shown higher rates of superficial infection, whilst internal fixation has shown higher risk of deep infection, but lower risk of other complications. This paper investigates outcomes in open tibial fractures based on fixation method. A retrospective review was performed for patients presenting to an ortho-plastic unit with GA IIIb tibial fractures between June 2013 and October 2021. 85 patients were identified. The most common implant was an intramedullary nail (IMN), used in 29 patients (34.1%); open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was performed in 16 patients (18.8%). 18 patients (21.2%) were definitively managed with a frame alone. Mean follow-up from was 18 months (2-77). Patients with ORIF needed a mean of 3.37 operations; it was 2.48 for IMN which was significantly different from frames at 5.00 (p=0.000). The mean time to bony union after definitive fixation was 11.4 months. This differed depending on the implant used for fixation, with ORIF at 7.1 months, 10.1 for IMN, and frames at 17.2 months; ORIF significantly differed from frames (p=0.009). Superficial infection was common, seen in 38.8% of patients, and only 3 patients (4%) developed deep infections involving metalwork, with no difference in rates of either based on fixation method This study supports that ORIF has faster healing times, with less time to union compared to frames. It also shows that no implant was superior to another in terms of outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"83-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.1.12387\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.1.12387","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于 Gustilo-Anderson IIIb 型骨折的最佳骨骼固定方法,目前尚未达成共识。外固定法显示浅表感染率较高,而内固定法显示深部感染风险较高,但其他并发症风险较低。本文根据固定方法研究了开放性胫骨骨折的治疗效果。本文对 2013 年 6 月至 2021 年 10 月期间到整形外科就诊的 GA IIIb 胫骨骨折患者进行了回顾性研究。共发现 85 例患者。最常见的植入物是髓内钉(IMN),29 名患者(34.1%)使用了这种植入物;16 名患者(18.8%)进行了切开复位内固定术(ORIF)。18名患者(21.2%)最终只使用了骨架。平均随访时间为18个月(2-77)。接受 ORIF 的患者平均需要 3.37 次手术;IMN 患者需要 2.48 次手术,与框架患者的 5.00 次手术有显著差异(P=0.000)。最终固定后达到骨结合的平均时间为 11.4 个月。这取决于用于固定的植入物,ORIF为7.1个月,IMN为10.1个月,框架为17.2个月;ORIF与框架有显著差异(p=0.009)。表层感染很常见,占患者总数的 38.8%,只有 3 名患者(4%)发生了涉及金属制品的深层感染,这两种感染的发生率因固定方法不同而无差异。研究还表明,就结果而言,没有一种植入物优于另一种植入物。
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
Outcomes following surgical fixation of Gustilo-Anderson IIIb open tibial fractures.

There is no consensus as to the optimal skeletal fixation method for Gustilo-Anderson IIIb fractures. External fixation methods have previously shown higher rates of superficial infection, whilst internal fixation has shown higher risk of deep infection, but lower risk of other complications. This paper investigates outcomes in open tibial fractures based on fixation method. A retrospective review was performed for patients presenting to an ortho-plastic unit with GA IIIb tibial fractures between June 2013 and October 2021. 85 patients were identified. The most common implant was an intramedullary nail (IMN), used in 29 patients (34.1%); open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was performed in 16 patients (18.8%). 18 patients (21.2%) were definitively managed with a frame alone. Mean follow-up from was 18 months (2-77). Patients with ORIF needed a mean of 3.37 operations; it was 2.48 for IMN which was significantly different from frames at 5.00 (p=0.000). The mean time to bony union after definitive fixation was 11.4 months. This differed depending on the implant used for fixation, with ORIF at 7.1 months, 10.1 for IMN, and frames at 17.2 months; ORIF significantly differed from frames (p=0.009). Superficial infection was common, seen in 38.8% of patients, and only 3 patients (4%) developed deep infections involving metalwork, with no difference in rates of either based on fixation method This study supports that ORIF has faster healing times, with less time to union compared to frames. It also shows that no implant was superior to another in terms of outcomes.

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
Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
3D quantitative CT study to assess rotator cuff muscle fatty infiltration. Alkaptonuric Ochronosis: A case-based review. Chronic regional pain syndrome following calcaneal fractures: what causes it and how may Vitamin C aid? Clinical Significance of Arthroscopic Debridement, Trapeziectomy, and Joint Replacement for Basilar Thumb Joint Arthritis: A Meta-analysis of Pain Score Improvements. Cost analysis of total knee arthroplasty surgeries in Turkey.
×
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