经皮 K 线与钢板固定治疗桡骨远端骨折的疗效比较:关注骨质疏松患者和双骨桡骨远端骨折的稳定性。

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Cureus Pub Date : 2024-11-04 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.7759/cureus.72981
Kapil Shinde, Ketan Kantamaneni, Reshmitha Kantamneni, Emad Ahmed, Muhammad Asad Arif, Sravan Sanka, Salih Seidahmed, Christopher James
{"title":"经皮 K 线与钢板固定治疗桡骨远端骨折的疗效比较:关注骨质疏松患者和双骨桡骨远端骨折的稳定性。","authors":"Kapil Shinde, Ketan Kantamaneni, Reshmitha Kantamneni, Emad Ahmed, Muhammad Asad Arif, Sravan Sanka, Salih Seidahmed, Christopher James","doi":"10.7759/cureus.72981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are commonly treated with percutaneous K-wire or plate fixation. The relative efficacy and stability of these methods, particularly in osteoporotic patients and in cases involving both distal radius and ulna fractures, remain subjects of clinical debate. Objective This study aims to compare the outcomes of percutaneous K-wire fixation versus plate fixation in patients with distal end radius fractures, focusing on postoperative stability in osteoporotic conditions and both-bone distal end fractures. Methods A total of 50 patients were retrospectively analysed and divided into two groups: 25 underwent percutaneous K-wire fixation, and 25 underwent plate fixation. Outcomes measured included bone healing time, complication rates, functional recovery using the DASH score, and radiological outcomes through standard X-ray imaging. Results Preliminary data suggest that plate fixation offers better stability, especially in osteoporotic patients and cases with both-bone involvement. Complications with K-wire fixation were more frequent in these subgroups. Conclusion Plate fixation may provide superior stability and functional outcomes in treating DRFs, particularly in complex cases involving osteoporosis or bone injuries. Further research with larger sample sizes and prospective design is recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous K-Wires Versus Plate Fixation in the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: A Focus on Stability in Osteoporotic Patients and Both-Bone Distal End Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Kapil Shinde, Ketan Kantamaneni, Reshmitha Kantamneni, Emad Ahmed, Muhammad Asad Arif, Sravan Sanka, Salih Seidahmed, Christopher James\",\"doi\":\"10.7759/cureus.72981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are commonly treated with percutaneous K-wire or plate fixation. The relative efficacy and stability of these methods, particularly in osteoporotic patients and in cases involving both distal radius and ulna fractures, remain subjects of clinical debate. Objective This study aims to compare the outcomes of percutaneous K-wire fixation versus plate fixation in patients with distal end radius fractures, focusing on postoperative stability in osteoporotic conditions and both-bone distal end fractures. Methods A total of 50 patients were retrospectively analysed and divided into two groups: 25 underwent percutaneous K-wire fixation, and 25 underwent plate fixation. Outcomes measured included bone healing time, complication rates, functional recovery using the DASH score, and radiological outcomes through standard X-ray imaging. Results Preliminary data suggest that plate fixation offers better stability, especially in osteoporotic patients and cases with both-bone involvement. Complications with K-wire fixation were more frequent in these subgroups. Conclusion Plate fixation may provide superior stability and functional outcomes in treating DRFs, particularly in complex cases involving osteoporosis or bone injuries. Further research with larger sample sizes and prospective design is recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cureus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534151/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cureus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.72981\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.72981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景桡骨远端骨折(DRF)通常采用经皮 K 线或钢板固定治疗。这些方法的相对疗效和稳定性,尤其是在骨质疏松患者和同时涉及桡骨远端和尺骨骨折的病例中的疗效和稳定性,仍是临床争论的主题。目的 本研究旨在比较桡骨远端骨折患者经皮 K 线固定与钢板固定的疗效,重点关注骨质疏松和双骨远端骨折患者的术后稳定性。方法 对 50 例患者进行回顾性分析,并将其分为两组:25 例接受经皮 K 型钢丝固定,25 例接受钢板固定。测量结果包括骨愈合时间、并发症发生率、使用 DASH 评分的功能恢复情况以及通过标准 X 光成像的放射学结果。结果 初步数据表明,钢板固定具有更好的稳定性,尤其是在骨质疏松患者和双骨受累的病例中。在这些亚组中,K 线固定的并发症更为常见。结论 在治疗 DRF 时,钢板固定可能会提供更好的稳定性和功能性结果,尤其是在涉及骨质疏松症或骨损伤的复杂病例中。建议采用更大样本量和前瞻性设计开展进一步研究。
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
Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous K-Wires Versus Plate Fixation in the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: A Focus on Stability in Osteoporotic Patients and Both-Bone Distal End Fractures.

Background Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are commonly treated with percutaneous K-wire or plate fixation. The relative efficacy and stability of these methods, particularly in osteoporotic patients and in cases involving both distal radius and ulna fractures, remain subjects of clinical debate. Objective This study aims to compare the outcomes of percutaneous K-wire fixation versus plate fixation in patients with distal end radius fractures, focusing on postoperative stability in osteoporotic conditions and both-bone distal end fractures. Methods A total of 50 patients were retrospectively analysed and divided into two groups: 25 underwent percutaneous K-wire fixation, and 25 underwent plate fixation. Outcomes measured included bone healing time, complication rates, functional recovery using the DASH score, and radiological outcomes through standard X-ray imaging. Results Preliminary data suggest that plate fixation offers better stability, especially in osteoporotic patients and cases with both-bone involvement. Complications with K-wire fixation were more frequent in these subgroups. Conclusion Plate fixation may provide superior stability and functional outcomes in treating DRFs, particularly in complex cases involving osteoporosis or bone injuries. Further research with larger sample sizes and prospective design is recommended.

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
The Current Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Detection of Its Complications: A Systematic Review. Assessment of Optimal Treatment Strategies and Their Outcomes in T3N1 Rectal Cancers. Effective Pain Management of Postherpetic Neuralgia Using a Combination of Analgesics and Conservative Measures. Evaluation of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes as Predictors of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer. Exacerbation of Hyperbilirubinemia by Falciparum Malaria in a Patient With Coexisting Gilbert's Syndrome and Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency.
×
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