Justin Solarczyk, Natasha M Simske, Austin R Thompson, Lisa Reider, Eben A Carroll, Joshua L Gary, Renan Castillo, Stephen M Quinnan, William Obremskey, Robert V O'Toole, Heather A Vallier, Saam Morshed
{"title":"现代外环固定或内固定治疗严重胫干开放性骨折后的功能结果。","authors":"Justin Solarczyk, Natasha M Simske, Austin R Thompson, Lisa Reider, Eben A Carroll, Joshua L Gary, Renan Castillo, Stephen M Quinnan, William Obremskey, Robert V O'Toole, Heather A Vallier, Saam Morshed","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.24.00888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared the functional outcomes of patients with open tibial shaft fractures who were randomized to either modern external ring fixation (EF) or internal fixation (IF). We hypothesized that there would be differences in patient-reported function between the treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This preplanned analysis of secondary outcomes from the FIXIT study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, included patients 18 to 64 years of age with a Gustilo-Anderson Type-IIIB or severe-Type IIIA diaphyseal or metaphyseal tibial fracture who were randomly assigned to either IF (n = 132) or EF (n = 122). Follow-up visits occurred at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Outcomes included Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) physical component score (PCS), use of ambulatory assistive devices, and ability to ambulate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean VR-12 PCS was slightly higher (better) for IF (24.8) than for EF (22.6) at 3 months (mean difference, 2.2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2, 4.3]; p = 0.03) and trended higher for IF (27.0) compared with EF (25.3) at 6 months (mean difference, 1.8 [95% CI: -0.9, 4.4]; p = 0.19). However, there was no difference between the groups at 12 months. There were no clinically important or significant differences in SMFA Dysfunction and Bother scores between the treatment groups at any time point. EF was associated with a higher risk of using any ambulatory assistive device at 6 months (relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.21, 1.82]; p < 0.0001). The absolute percentage of patients using any ambulatory device was 37.6% for IF and 45.4% for EF at 1 year. There was no difference in ambulatory status between the treatment groups at any time point.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no difference in physical function between patients with severe tibial fractures treated with IF versus EF. There was a high rate of impairment overall. Assistive devices for walking were more often utilized in the EF group at 6 months, and both treatment groups demonstrated similar overall impairment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":" ","pages":"694-701"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Functional Outcomes After Modern External Ring Fixation or Internal Fixation for Severe Open Tibial Shaft Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Justin Solarczyk, Natasha M Simske, Austin R Thompson, Lisa Reider, Eben A Carroll, Joshua L Gary, Renan Castillo, Stephen M Quinnan, William Obremskey, Robert V O'Toole, Heather A Vallier, Saam Morshed\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.24.00888\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared the functional outcomes of patients with open tibial shaft fractures who were randomized to either modern external ring fixation (EF) or internal fixation (IF). We hypothesized that there would be differences in patient-reported function between the treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This preplanned analysis of secondary outcomes from the FIXIT study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, included patients 18 to 64 years of age with a Gustilo-Anderson Type-IIIB or severe-Type IIIA diaphyseal or metaphyseal tibial fracture who were randomly assigned to either IF (n = 132) or EF (n = 122). Follow-up visits occurred at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Outcomes included Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) physical component score (PCS), use of ambulatory assistive devices, and ability to ambulate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean VR-12 PCS was slightly higher (better) for IF (24.8) than for EF (22.6) at 3 months (mean difference, 2.2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2, 4.3]; p = 0.03) and trended higher for IF (27.0) compared with EF (25.3) at 6 months (mean difference, 1.8 [95% CI: -0.9, 4.4]; p = 0.19). However, there was no difference between the groups at 12 months. There were no clinically important or significant differences in SMFA Dysfunction and Bother scores between the treatment groups at any time point. EF was associated with a higher risk of using any ambulatory assistive device at 6 months (relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.21, 1.82]; p < 0.0001). The absolute percentage of patients using any ambulatory device was 37.6% for IF and 45.4% for EF at 1 year. There was no difference in ambulatory status between the treatment groups at any time point.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no difference in physical function between patients with severe tibial fractures treated with IF versus EF. There was a high rate of impairment overall. Assistive devices for walking were more often utilized in the EF group at 6 months, and both treatment groups demonstrated similar overall impairment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"694-701\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00888\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00888","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Functional Outcomes After Modern External Ring Fixation or Internal Fixation for Severe Open Tibial Shaft Fractures.
Background: This study compared the functional outcomes of patients with open tibial shaft fractures who were randomized to either modern external ring fixation (EF) or internal fixation (IF). We hypothesized that there would be differences in patient-reported function between the treatment groups.
Methods: This preplanned analysis of secondary outcomes from the FIXIT study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, included patients 18 to 64 years of age with a Gustilo-Anderson Type-IIIB or severe-Type IIIA diaphyseal or metaphyseal tibial fracture who were randomly assigned to either IF (n = 132) or EF (n = 122). Follow-up visits occurred at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Outcomes included Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) physical component score (PCS), use of ambulatory assistive devices, and ability to ambulate.
Results: The mean VR-12 PCS was slightly higher (better) for IF (24.8) than for EF (22.6) at 3 months (mean difference, 2.2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2, 4.3]; p = 0.03) and trended higher for IF (27.0) compared with EF (25.3) at 6 months (mean difference, 1.8 [95% CI: -0.9, 4.4]; p = 0.19). However, there was no difference between the groups at 12 months. There were no clinically important or significant differences in SMFA Dysfunction and Bother scores between the treatment groups at any time point. EF was associated with a higher risk of using any ambulatory assistive device at 6 months (relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.21, 1.82]; p < 0.0001). The absolute percentage of patients using any ambulatory device was 37.6% for IF and 45.4% for EF at 1 year. There was no difference in ambulatory status between the treatment groups at any time point.
Conclusions: We found no difference in physical function between patients with severe tibial fractures treated with IF versus EF. There was a high rate of impairment overall. Assistive devices for walking were more often utilized in the EF group at 6 months, and both treatment groups demonstrated similar overall impairment.
Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
