65 岁以上患者的骶骨 U 型骨折。

Avrey A Novak, Joseph T Patterson, Michael F Githens, Reza Firoozabadi, Conor P Kleweno
{"title":"65 岁以上患者的骶骨 U 型骨折。","authors":"Avrey A Novak, Joseph T Patterson, Michael F Githens, Reza Firoozabadi, Conor P Kleweno","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of disability that geriatric patients with sacral U-type fractures experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients older than 65 years presenting from 2013 to 2019 with a U-type sacral fracture were included. Patient demographics, treatment type, preinjury domicile, preinjury use of assistive devices, and neurologic deficits were recorded. Outcomes included mortality, return to preinjury domicile, and use of assistive devices for mobility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 46 patients in the treatment period, ground-level fall was the most common mechanism of injury (60.8%). Thirty-four patients (74%) were treated surgically, most commonly with closed percutaneous fixation (n = 27). Thirteen percent of patients died during the admission. At the final follow-up, 14 (45%) had not returned to their prior domicile and 18 (58%) required more supportive assistive devices. Seventy-three percent of patients who presented delayed required a new gait aid, compared with 47% presenting acutely. Between those presenting with low-energy versus high-energy mechanisms, similar rates of need were observed for new assistive devices (50% low and 73% high) and lack of return to preinjury domicile (40% low, 50% high).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Many geriatric patients were disabled by or died after sustaining a sacral U-type fracture, highlighting the morbidity regardless of high-energy or low-energy trauma.</p>","PeriodicalId":45062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11495793/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sacral U-type Fractures in Patients Older Than 65 years.\",\"authors\":\"Avrey A Novak, Joseph T Patterson, Michael F Githens, Reza Firoozabadi, Conor P Kleweno\",\"doi\":\"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of disability that geriatric patients with sacral U-type fractures experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients older than 65 years presenting from 2013 to 2019 with a U-type sacral fracture were included. Patient demographics, treatment type, preinjury domicile, preinjury use of assistive devices, and neurologic deficits were recorded. Outcomes included mortality, return to preinjury domicile, and use of assistive devices for mobility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 46 patients in the treatment period, ground-level fall was the most common mechanism of injury (60.8%). Thirty-four patients (74%) were treated surgically, most commonly with closed percutaneous fixation (n = 27). Thirteen percent of patients died during the admission. At the final follow-up, 14 (45%) had not returned to their prior domicile and 18 (58%) required more supportive assistive devices. Seventy-three percent of patients who presented delayed required a new gait aid, compared with 47% presenting acutely. Between those presenting with low-energy versus high-energy mechanisms, similar rates of need were observed for new assistive devices (50% low and 73% high) and lack of return to preinjury domicile (40% low, 50% high).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Many geriatric patients were disabled by or died after sustaining a sacral U-type fracture, highlighting the morbidity regardless of high-energy or low-energy trauma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11495793/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言本研究旨在确定骶骨U型骨折老年患者的残疾程度:方法:纳入 2013 年至 2019 年期间因骶骨 U 型骨折就诊的 65 岁以上患者。记录了患者的人口统计学特征、治疗类型、受伤前住所、受伤前辅助设备使用情况以及神经功能缺损情况。结果包括死亡率、恢复到受伤前的居住地以及使用辅助设备进行移动:在治疗期间的 46 名患者中,地面跌倒是最常见的受伤机制(60.8%)。34名患者(74%)接受了手术治疗,其中最常见的是经皮闭合固定术(27人)。13%的患者在入院期间死亡。在最后的随访中,有14名患者(45%)没有回到原来的住所,18名患者(58%)需要更多的辅助设备。73%的延迟入院患者需要新的步态辅助设备,而急性入院患者的这一比例为47%。在出现低能量机制和高能量机制的患者中,需要新辅助设备(低50%,高73%)和无法返回受伤前住所(低40%,高50%)的比例相似:讨论:许多老年患者在骶骨U型骨折后致残或死亡,这凸显了高能量或低能量创伤的发病率。
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
Sacral U-type Fractures in Patients Older Than 65 years.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of disability that geriatric patients with sacral U-type fractures experience.

Methods: Patients older than 65 years presenting from 2013 to 2019 with a U-type sacral fracture were included. Patient demographics, treatment type, preinjury domicile, preinjury use of assistive devices, and neurologic deficits were recorded. Outcomes included mortality, return to preinjury domicile, and use of assistive devices for mobility.

Results: Among 46 patients in the treatment period, ground-level fall was the most common mechanism of injury (60.8%). Thirty-four patients (74%) were treated surgically, most commonly with closed percutaneous fixation (n = 27). Thirteen percent of patients died during the admission. At the final follow-up, 14 (45%) had not returned to their prior domicile and 18 (58%) required more supportive assistive devices. Seventy-three percent of patients who presented delayed required a new gait aid, compared with 47% presenting acutely. Between those presenting with low-energy versus high-energy mechanisms, similar rates of need were observed for new assistive devices (50% low and 73% high) and lack of return to preinjury domicile (40% low, 50% high).

Discussion: Many geriatric patients were disabled by or died after sustaining a sacral U-type fracture, highlighting the morbidity regardless of high-energy or low-energy trauma.

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
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
282
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comments on "Readability Analysis of Patient Education Material on Rotator Cuff Injuries From the Top 25 Ranking Orthopedic Institutions". Is Magnetic Resonance Imaging Overused Among Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty? Sacral U-type Fractures in Patients Older Than 65 years. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Supercapsular Percutaneously Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Standard Posterior Approach for Femoral Neck Fracture in Elderly Patients. Biomechanical Evaluation of Suture Augmentation of Dorsal Locking Plate Fixation in Transverse Patella Fractures.
×
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