胫骨骨折的临时固定:外固定还是临时钢板固定疗效更好?

The Iowa orthopaedic journal Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Cody L Walters, Samuel K Simister, Shannon Tse, Aziz Saade, Mark F Megerian, Ellen P Fitzpatrick, Gillian L Soles, Mark A Lee, Augustine M Saiz, Sean T Campbell
{"title":"胫骨骨折的临时固定:外固定还是临时钢板固定疗效更好?","authors":"Cody L Walters, Samuel K Simister, Shannon Tse, Aziz Saade, Mark F Megerian, Ellen P Fitzpatrick, Gillian L Soles, Mark A Lee, Augustine M Saiz, Sean T Campbell","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Provisional stabilization of high-energy tibia fractures using temporary plate fixation (TPF) or external fixation (ex-fix) prior to definitive medullary nailing (MN) is a strategy common in damage control orthopaedics. There is a lack of comprehensive data evaluating outcomes between these methods. This study compares outcomes of patients stabilized with either TPF or ex-fix, and with early definitive MN only, assessing complications including nonunion and deep infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was performed on adult patients with tibia fractures treated with MN followed until fracture union (≥3 months) at a single level-1 trauma center from 2014 to 2022. Medical records were evaluated for nonunion and deep infection. Demographics, injury characteristics, and fixation methods were recorded. Significance between patients who underwent TPF and ex-fix was compared with a matched cohort of early MN using Pearson's exact tests, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA, depending on the appropriate variable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>81 patients were included; 27 were temporized with TPF (n = 12) or ex-fix (n = 15). 54 early MN cases defined the matched cohort. All groups had similar patient and fracture characteristics. The difference in rates of nonunion between groups was significant, with TPF, ex-fix, and early MN groups at 17, 40, and 11% respectively (p = 0.027). Early MN had lower rates of nonunion (11% vs. 40%, p = 0.017) and deep infection (13% vs. 40%, p = 0.028) compared to ex-fix.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Temporary ex-fix followed by staged MN was associated with higher rates of nonunion and deep infection. There was no difference in complication rates between TPF and early definitive MN. These data suggest that ex-fix followed by MN of tibia fractures should be avoided in favor of early definitive MN when possible. If temporization is needed, TPF may be a better option than ex-fix. <b>Level of Evidence: IV</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":94233,"journal":{"name":"The Iowa orthopaedic journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"179-184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11195873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Temporary Stabilization of Tibia Fractures: Does External Fixation or Temporary Plate Fixation Result in Better Outcomes?\",\"authors\":\"Cody L Walters, Samuel K Simister, Shannon Tse, Aziz Saade, Mark F Megerian, Ellen P Fitzpatrick, Gillian L Soles, Mark A Lee, Augustine M Saiz, Sean T Campbell\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Provisional stabilization of high-energy tibia fractures using temporary plate fixation (TPF) or external fixation (ex-fix) prior to definitive medullary nailing (MN) is a strategy common in damage control orthopaedics. There is a lack of comprehensive data evaluating outcomes between these methods. This study compares outcomes of patients stabilized with either TPF or ex-fix, and with early definitive MN only, assessing complications including nonunion and deep infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was performed on adult patients with tibia fractures treated with MN followed until fracture union (≥3 months) at a single level-1 trauma center from 2014 to 2022. Medical records were evaluated for nonunion and deep infection. Demographics, injury characteristics, and fixation methods were recorded. Significance between patients who underwent TPF and ex-fix was compared with a matched cohort of early MN using Pearson's exact tests, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA, depending on the appropriate variable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>81 patients were included; 27 were temporized with TPF (n = 12) or ex-fix (n = 15). 54 early MN cases defined the matched cohort. All groups had similar patient and fracture characteristics. The difference in rates of nonunion between groups was significant, with TPF, ex-fix, and early MN groups at 17, 40, and 11% respectively (p = 0.027). Early MN had lower rates of nonunion (11% vs. 40%, p = 0.017) and deep infection (13% vs. 40%, p = 0.028) compared to ex-fix.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Temporary ex-fix followed by staged MN was associated with higher rates of nonunion and deep infection. There was no difference in complication rates between TPF and early definitive MN. These data suggest that ex-fix followed by MN of tibia fractures should be avoided in favor of early definitive MN when possible. If temporization is needed, TPF may be a better option than ex-fix. <b>Level of Evidence: IV</b>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Iowa orthopaedic journal\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"179-184\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11195873/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Iowa orthopaedic journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Iowa orthopaedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在确定性髓内钉(MN)之前使用临时钢板固定(TPF)或外固定(ex-fix)临时稳定高能量胫骨骨折是损伤控制矫形外科常用的一种策略。目前还缺乏评估这些方法疗效的全面数据。本研究比较了采用 TPF 或前固定法稳定病情的患者的疗效,以及仅采用早期确定性 MN 的患者的疗效,评估了包括非骨髁和深部感染在内的并发症:研究对2014年至2022年在一家一级创伤中心接受MN治疗直至骨折愈合(≥3个月)的成年胫骨骨折患者进行了回顾性研究。对医疗记录中的不愈合和深部感染情况进行了评估。记录了人口统计学、损伤特征和固定方法。使用皮尔逊精确检验、独立t检验和单因素方差分析(取决于适当的变量)比较了接受TPF和外固定的患者与匹配的早期MN患者队列之间的显著性:共纳入 81 例患者,其中 27 例接受了 TPF(12 例)或前固定(15 例)临时治疗。54例早期MN病例构成了匹配组群。所有组别的患者和骨折特征相似。各组间的骨折不愈合率差异显著,TPF组、外固定组和早期MN组分别为17%、40%和11%(P = 0.027)。与前固定相比,早期 MN 的不愈合率(11% 对 40%,p = 0.017)和深部感染率(13% 对 40%,p = 0.028)更低:结论:临时外固定后再分期MN与较高的不愈合率和深部感染率相关。结论:临时外固定后再分期MN与较高的非骨髁和深部感染率有关,而TPF和早期明确MN的并发症发生率没有差异。这些数据表明,在可能的情况下,应避免胫骨骨折切开复位后再行MN,而应选择早期明确性MN。如果需要临时固定,TPF可能是比外固定更好的选择。证据等级:四级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Temporary Stabilization of Tibia Fractures: Does External Fixation or Temporary Plate Fixation Result in Better Outcomes?

Background: Provisional stabilization of high-energy tibia fractures using temporary plate fixation (TPF) or external fixation (ex-fix) prior to definitive medullary nailing (MN) is a strategy common in damage control orthopaedics. There is a lack of comprehensive data evaluating outcomes between these methods. This study compares outcomes of patients stabilized with either TPF or ex-fix, and with early definitive MN only, assessing complications including nonunion and deep infection.

Methods: A retrospective review was performed on adult patients with tibia fractures treated with MN followed until fracture union (≥3 months) at a single level-1 trauma center from 2014 to 2022. Medical records were evaluated for nonunion and deep infection. Demographics, injury characteristics, and fixation methods were recorded. Significance between patients who underwent TPF and ex-fix was compared with a matched cohort of early MN using Pearson's exact tests, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA, depending on the appropriate variable.

Results: 81 patients were included; 27 were temporized with TPF (n = 12) or ex-fix (n = 15). 54 early MN cases defined the matched cohort. All groups had similar patient and fracture characteristics. The difference in rates of nonunion between groups was significant, with TPF, ex-fix, and early MN groups at 17, 40, and 11% respectively (p = 0.027). Early MN had lower rates of nonunion (11% vs. 40%, p = 0.017) and deep infection (13% vs. 40%, p = 0.028) compared to ex-fix.

Conclusion: Temporary ex-fix followed by staged MN was associated with higher rates of nonunion and deep infection. There was no difference in complication rates between TPF and early definitive MN. These data suggest that ex-fix followed by MN of tibia fractures should be avoided in favor of early definitive MN when possible. If temporization is needed, TPF may be a better option than ex-fix. Level of Evidence: IV.

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
Pain Management for Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Systematic Review. Peri-Operative Management of Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Report of Current Practices from the Anchor Group, Supporting Literature, and Areas for Future Investigation. Posterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Very Young Children - A Case Report and Modern Review. Predicting Septic Arthritis in the Setting of Crystalline Arthropathy in the Native Joint Using Laboratory Data. Predictive Factors for Intraoperative Determination for the Need of Femoral Osteochondroplasty After Periacetabular Osteotomy for Acetabular Dysplasia.
×
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