胫骨平台双髁骨折最终固定期间维持外固定架是否影响骨折对齐和深部感染率?

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2025.112180
John Mickley , William Philips , Sara Colosimo , Dinela Kurtic , Adam Gitlin , Porter Young
{"title":"胫骨平台双髁骨折最终固定期间维持外固定架是否影响骨折对齐和深部感染率?","authors":"John Mickley ,&nbsp;William Philips ,&nbsp;Sara Colosimo ,&nbsp;Dinela Kurtic ,&nbsp;Adam Gitlin ,&nbsp;Porter Young","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2025.112180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>External fixators are utilized to temporarily stabilize bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. They can be prepped during definitive surgery to help maintain fracture length and alignment. However, there is a potential for increased infection by leaving the external fixator on during the surgery. We hypothesize that maintaining the external fixator during surgery will result in no difference in rates of deep infection but improve reduction quality.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a retrospective cohort study of all bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated at an academic, level one trauma center over a 10-year period. The primary outcome analyzed was the rate of deep infection. Secondary outcomes analyzed included reduction quality by comparing the medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA) and posterior proximal tibia angle (PPTA), complication rate, and reoperation rate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One hundred and thirty-nine fractures in 133 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the external fixator removed and prepped groups in terms of baseline patient characteristics except for more motor vehicle collisions in the removed group (42 % vs 22.99 %, <em>p</em> = 0.0193) and more open fractures in the prepped group (6 % vs 18.39 %). Operative characteristics were also not statistically different except for more patients in the prepped group underwent preoperative skin shaving (22 % vs 48.28 %, <em>p</em> = 0.0023) and more patients in the removed group had fixation constructs with plate and pin site overlap (46 % vs 24.14 %, <em>p</em> = 0.0083). There was no difference in deep infection between the groups (16.00 % vs 8.05 %, <em>p</em> = 0.1511). There was no difference in reduction quality when comparing the MPTA (87.64° vs 87.40°, <em>p</em> = 0.6607) and PPTA (83.18° vs 83.97°, <em>p</em> = 0.3592). The rates of superficial infection (20 % vs 29.89 %, <em>p</em> = 0.2056), unplanned reoperation (30 % vs 18.39 %, <em>p</em> = 0.1179), complications (58 % vs 44.83 %, <em>p</em> = 0.1376), and nonunion (8 % vs 6.89 %, <em>p</em> = 0.8111) were also similar.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures are challenging injuries with a high complication profile. Our findings suggest that maintaining the external fixator is not associated with increased rates of deep infection or complications. However, maintaining the external fixator during surgery did not lead to differences in final coronal or sagittal alignment reduction quality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"56 3","pages":"Article 112180"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does maintaining external fixators during definitive fixation of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures influence fracture alignment and deep infection rates?\",\"authors\":\"John Mickley ,&nbsp;William Philips ,&nbsp;Sara Colosimo ,&nbsp;Dinela Kurtic ,&nbsp;Adam Gitlin ,&nbsp;Porter Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.injury.2025.112180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>External fixators are utilized to temporarily stabilize bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. They can be prepped during definitive surgery to help maintain fracture length and alignment. However, there is a potential for increased infection by leaving the external fixator on during the surgery. We hypothesize that maintaining the external fixator during surgery will result in no difference in rates of deep infection but improve reduction quality.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a retrospective cohort study of all bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated at an academic, level one trauma center over a 10-year period. The primary outcome analyzed was the rate of deep infection. Secondary outcomes analyzed included reduction quality by comparing the medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA) and posterior proximal tibia angle (PPTA), complication rate, and reoperation rate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One hundred and thirty-nine fractures in 133 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the external fixator removed and prepped groups in terms of baseline patient characteristics except for more motor vehicle collisions in the removed group (42 % vs 22.99 %, <em>p</em> = 0.0193) and more open fractures in the prepped group (6 % vs 18.39 %). Operative characteristics were also not statistically different except for more patients in the prepped group underwent preoperative skin shaving (22 % vs 48.28 %, <em>p</em> = 0.0023) and more patients in the removed group had fixation constructs with plate and pin site overlap (46 % vs 24.14 %, <em>p</em> = 0.0083). There was no difference in deep infection between the groups (16.00 % vs 8.05 %, <em>p</em> = 0.1511). There was no difference in reduction quality when comparing the MPTA (87.64° vs 87.40°, <em>p</em> = 0.6607) and PPTA (83.18° vs 83.97°, <em>p</em> = 0.3592). The rates of superficial infection (20 % vs 29.89 %, <em>p</em> = 0.2056), unplanned reoperation (30 % vs 18.39 %, <em>p</em> = 0.1179), complications (58 % vs 44.83 %, <em>p</em> = 0.1376), and nonunion (8 % vs 6.89 %, <em>p</em> = 0.8111) were also similar.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures are challenging injuries with a high complication profile. Our findings suggest that maintaining the external fixator is not associated with increased rates of deep infection or complications. However, maintaining the external fixator during surgery did not lead to differences in final coronal or sagittal alignment reduction quality.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"volume\":\"56 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 112180\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138325000403\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138325000403","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:外固定架用于暂时稳定胫骨双髁平台骨折。它们可以在确定手术期间进行准备,以帮助维持骨折长度和对齐。然而,在手术过程中保留外固定架可能会增加感染。我们假设在手术中维持外固定架不会导致深度感染发生率的差异,但会提高复位质量。方法:我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,所有在学术一级创伤中心治疗的胫骨平台双髁骨折超过10年。分析的主要结局是深度感染率。次要结果分析包括通过比较胫骨内侧近端角(MPTA)和胫骨后近端角(PPTA)复位质量、并发症发生率和再手术率。结果:133例患者139例骨折符合纳入标准。在基线患者特征方面,移除外固定架组和准备组之间没有差异,除了移除组有更多的机动车碰撞(42%对22.99%,p = 0.0193)和准备组有更多的开放性骨折(6%对18.39%)。手术特征也无统计学差异,除了准备组更多患者术前刮皮(22%对48.28%,p = 0.0023)和移除组更多患者使用钢板和针位置重叠的固定装置(46%对24.14%,p = 0.0083)。两组间深度感染发生率无显著差异(16.00% vs 8.05%, p = 0.1511)。MPTA(87.64°vs 87.40°,p = 0.6607)和PPTA(83.18°vs 83.97°,p = 0.3592)复位质量无差异。浅表感染(20% vs 29.89%, p = 0.2056)、非计划再手术(30% vs 18.39%, p = 0.1179)、并发症(58% vs 44.83%, p = 0.1376)、骨不连(8% vs 6.89%, p = 0.8111)的发生率也相似。结论:胫骨双髁平台骨折是一种具有挑战性的损伤,具有很高的并发症。我们的研究结果表明,维持外固定架与深部感染或并发症的发生率增加无关。然而,在手术期间维持外固定架并没有导致最终冠状面或矢状面对准复位质量的差异。
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
Does maintaining external fixators during definitive fixation of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures influence fracture alignment and deep infection rates?

Introduction

External fixators are utilized to temporarily stabilize bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. They can be prepped during definitive surgery to help maintain fracture length and alignment. However, there is a potential for increased infection by leaving the external fixator on during the surgery. We hypothesize that maintaining the external fixator during surgery will result in no difference in rates of deep infection but improve reduction quality.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated at an academic, level one trauma center over a 10-year period. The primary outcome analyzed was the rate of deep infection. Secondary outcomes analyzed included reduction quality by comparing the medial proximal tibia angle (MPTA) and posterior proximal tibia angle (PPTA), complication rate, and reoperation rate.

Results

One hundred and thirty-nine fractures in 133 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the external fixator removed and prepped groups in terms of baseline patient characteristics except for more motor vehicle collisions in the removed group (42 % vs 22.99 %, p = 0.0193) and more open fractures in the prepped group (6 % vs 18.39 %). Operative characteristics were also not statistically different except for more patients in the prepped group underwent preoperative skin shaving (22 % vs 48.28 %, p = 0.0023) and more patients in the removed group had fixation constructs with plate and pin site overlap (46 % vs 24.14 %, p = 0.0083). There was no difference in deep infection between the groups (16.00 % vs 8.05 %, p = 0.1511). There was no difference in reduction quality when comparing the MPTA (87.64° vs 87.40°, p = 0.6607) and PPTA (83.18° vs 83.97°, p = 0.3592). The rates of superficial infection (20 % vs 29.89 %, p = 0.2056), unplanned reoperation (30 % vs 18.39 %, p = 0.1179), complications (58 % vs 44.83 %, p = 0.1376), and nonunion (8 % vs 6.89 %, p = 0.8111) were also similar.

Conclusions

Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures are challenging injuries with a high complication profile. Our findings suggest that maintaining the external fixator is not associated with increased rates of deep infection or complications. However, maintaining the external fixator during surgery did not lead to differences in final coronal or sagittal alignment reduction quality.
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
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for postoperative infection after non-elective femur fracture fixation in pediatric patients Perioperative multidose tranexamic acid combined with erythropoietin and iron isomaltoside supplementation reduces transfusion requirements of elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures Factors associated with older adult fracture visits to United States emergency departments, 2013-2022 Autologous bone marrow aspirate as a standalone treatment in patients with impaired fracture healing: A scoping review Antibiotic prophylaxis protocol for gunshot wound–related open fractures: A single-center retrospective analysis
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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