耻骨联合钢板固定治疗骨盆前环损伤后固定失败的临床意义:一项长期随访的观察性队列研究。

IF 2.6 Q1 SURGERY Patient Safety in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1186/s13037-024-00401-3
Dmitry Notov, Eva Knorr, Ulrich J A Spiegl, Georg Osterhoff, Andreas Höch, Christian Kleber, Philipp Pieroh
{"title":"耻骨联合钢板固定治疗骨盆前环损伤后固定失败的临床意义:一项长期随访的观察性队列研究。","authors":"Dmitry Notov, Eva Knorr, Ulrich J A Spiegl, Georg Osterhoff, Andreas Höch, Christian Kleber, Philipp Pieroh","doi":"10.1186/s13037-024-00401-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Open reduction and plate fixation is a standard procedure for treating traumatic symphyseal disruptions, but has a high incidence of implant failure. Several studies have attempted to identify predictors for implant failure and discussed its impact on functional outcome presenting conflicting results. Therefore, this study aimed to identify predictors of implant failure and to investigate the impact of implant failure on pain and functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a single-center, retrospective, observational non-controlled cohort study in a level-1 trauma center from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, 42 patients with a plate fixation of a traumatic symphyseal disruption aged ≥ 18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The following parameters were examined in terms of effect on occurrence of implant failure: age, body mass index (BMI), injury severity score (ISS), polytrauma, time to definitive treatment, postoperative weight-bearing, the occurrence of a surgical site infection, fracture severity, type of posterior injury, anterior and posterior fixation. A total of 25/42 patients consented to attend the follow- up examination, where pain was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale and functional outcome using the Majeed Pelvic Score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen patients had an anterior implant failure (16/42; 37%). None of the parameters studied were predictive for implant failure. The median follow-up time was six years and 8/25 patients had implant failure. There was no difference in the Numerical Rating Scale, but the work-adjusted Majeed Pelvic Score showed a better outcome for patients with implant failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>implant failure after symphyseal disruptions is not predictable, but appears to be clinically irrelevant. Therefore, an additional sacroiliac screw to prevent implant failure should be critically discussed and plate removal should be avoided in asymptomatic patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":46782,"journal":{"name":"Patient Safety in Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11112942/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The clinical relevance of fixation failure after pubic symphysis plating for anterior pelvic ring injuries: an observational cohort study with long-term follow-up.\",\"authors\":\"Dmitry Notov, Eva Knorr, Ulrich J A Spiegl, Georg Osterhoff, Andreas Höch, Christian Kleber, Philipp Pieroh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13037-024-00401-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Open reduction and plate fixation is a standard procedure for treating traumatic symphyseal disruptions, but has a high incidence of implant failure. Several studies have attempted to identify predictors for implant failure and discussed its impact on functional outcome presenting conflicting results. Therefore, this study aimed to identify predictors of implant failure and to investigate the impact of implant failure on pain and functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a single-center, retrospective, observational non-controlled cohort study in a level-1 trauma center from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, 42 patients with a plate fixation of a traumatic symphyseal disruption aged ≥ 18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The following parameters were examined in terms of effect on occurrence of implant failure: age, body mass index (BMI), injury severity score (ISS), polytrauma, time to definitive treatment, postoperative weight-bearing, the occurrence of a surgical site infection, fracture severity, type of posterior injury, anterior and posterior fixation. A total of 25/42 patients consented to attend the follow- up examination, where pain was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale and functional outcome using the Majeed Pelvic Score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen patients had an anterior implant failure (16/42; 37%). None of the parameters studied were predictive for implant failure. The median follow-up time was six years and 8/25 patients had implant failure. There was no difference in the Numerical Rating Scale, but the work-adjusted Majeed Pelvic Score showed a better outcome for patients with implant failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>implant failure after symphyseal disruptions is not predictable, but appears to be clinically irrelevant. Therefore, an additional sacroiliac screw to prevent implant failure should be critically discussed and plate removal should be avoided in asymptomatic patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11112942/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-024-00401-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Safety in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-024-00401-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:切开复位和钢板固定术是治疗创伤性骨骺断裂的标准手术,但植入失败的发生率很高。有几项研究试图确定植入失败的预测因素,并讨论其对功能结果的影响,但结果相互矛盾。因此,本研究旨在确定植入失败的预测因素,并调查植入失败对疼痛和功能结果的影响:2006年1月1日至2017年12月31日,在一家一级创伤中心进行的一项单中心、回顾性、观察性非对照队列研究中,纳入了42名年龄≥18岁、随访至少12个月的创伤性骨骺断裂钢板固定患者。研究了以下参数对植入失败发生的影响:年龄、体重指数(BMI)、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、多发性创伤、明确治疗时间、术后负重、手术部位感染发生率、骨折严重程度、后方损伤类型、前后固定。共有25/42名患者同意参加随访检查,随访检查采用数字评分量表评估疼痛,采用Majeed骨盆评分评估功能结果:结果:16 名患者前路植入失败(16/42;37%)。所研究的参数均不能预测植入失败。中位随访时间为六年,8/25 的患者植入失败。数字评定量表(Numerical Rating Scale)没有差异,但工作调整后的马吉德骨盆评分(Majeed Pelvic Score)显示,植入失败的患者预后较好。结论:骺板断裂后植入失败是不可预测的,但似乎与临床无关。因此,应认真讨论是否需要额外使用骶髂螺钉来防止植入失败,并避免在无症状的患者中移除钢板。
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
The clinical relevance of fixation failure after pubic symphysis plating for anterior pelvic ring injuries: an observational cohort study with long-term follow-up.

Background: Open reduction and plate fixation is a standard procedure for treating traumatic symphyseal disruptions, but has a high incidence of implant failure. Several studies have attempted to identify predictors for implant failure and discussed its impact on functional outcome presenting conflicting results. Therefore, this study aimed to identify predictors of implant failure and to investigate the impact of implant failure on pain and functional outcome.

Methods: In a single-center, retrospective, observational non-controlled cohort study in a level-1 trauma center from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, 42 patients with a plate fixation of a traumatic symphyseal disruption aged ≥ 18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The following parameters were examined in terms of effect on occurrence of implant failure: age, body mass index (BMI), injury severity score (ISS), polytrauma, time to definitive treatment, postoperative weight-bearing, the occurrence of a surgical site infection, fracture severity, type of posterior injury, anterior and posterior fixation. A total of 25/42 patients consented to attend the follow- up examination, where pain was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale and functional outcome using the Majeed Pelvic Score.

Results: Sixteen patients had an anterior implant failure (16/42; 37%). None of the parameters studied were predictive for implant failure. The median follow-up time was six years and 8/25 patients had implant failure. There was no difference in the Numerical Rating Scale, but the work-adjusted Majeed Pelvic Score showed a better outcome for patients with implant failure.

Conclusion: implant failure after symphyseal disruptions is not predictable, but appears to be clinically irrelevant. Therefore, an additional sacroiliac screw to prevent implant failure should be critically discussed and plate removal should be avoided in asymptomatic patients.

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
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.10%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
The role of spinal injections towards optimizing patient selection for spinal surgery: A proof-of-concept study in 176 lower back pain patients. Implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist in resource-limited Somalia: a new standard in surgical safety. Association between postoperative complications and hospital length of stay: a large-scale observational study of 4,495,582 patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) registry. Improving surgical technical skills for emergency fixation of unstable pelvic ring fractures: an experimental study using a pelvic ring fracture simulator. Efficacy of a novel oxygen scavenger mask in reducing local oxygen concentrations below the surgical fire risk threshold: an experimental proof-of-concept study.
×
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