骶髂椎弓根螺钉内固定与髂椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗骶骨骨折的比较。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Investigative Surgery Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/08941939.2021.2022253
Yangxing Luo, Yue Li, Li He, Chengla Yi
{"title":"骶髂椎弓根螺钉内固定与髂椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗骶骨骨折的比较。","authors":"Yangxing Luo,&nbsp;Yue Li,&nbsp;Li He,&nbsp;Chengla Yi","doi":"10.1080/08941939.2021.2022253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the short-term therapeutic effects of S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation and iliac screw fixation techniques in managing sacral fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From September 2015 to May 2020, 42 patients with sacral fractures who underwent lumbopelvic fixation by a single surgeon were analyzed. The patients were divided into the S2AI screw group (19 patients) and the iliac screw group (23 patients). Operative data, reduction quality, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of unplanned reoperation was significantly different between patients treated with S2AI screws than in those treated with iliac screws (0 versus 6, p = 0.02). The mean intraoperative estimated blood loss was 405.26 ± 229.67 mL in the S2AI screw group and 539.13 ± 246.32 mL in the iliac screw group (P = 0.08). No significant difference was observed in either group regarding the quality of reduction, functional outcome, or low back pain. The reduction quality based on the Matta criteria and excellent/good outcomes were 21/2 in the iliac screw group and 17/2 in the S2AI screw group. The functional outcomes based on the Majeed score and excellent/good/fair outcomes were 17/3/3 in the iliac screw group and 17/1/1 in the S2AI screw group. No complications, including implant breakage, loosening of the implant, or loss of reduction were found in either group during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both S2AI screws and iliac screws were effective in the treatment of sacral fractures. The use of S2AI screws, however, was independently associated with fewer unplanned reoperations for surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, and symptoms of screw protrusion than the use of iliac screws.</p>","PeriodicalId":16200,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"S2-Alar-Iliac Screw Fixation versus Iliac Screw Fixation in the Treatment of Sacral Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Yangxing Luo,&nbsp;Yue Li,&nbsp;Li He,&nbsp;Chengla Yi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08941939.2021.2022253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the short-term therapeutic effects of S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation and iliac screw fixation techniques in managing sacral fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From September 2015 to May 2020, 42 patients with sacral fractures who underwent lumbopelvic fixation by a single surgeon were analyzed. The patients were divided into the S2AI screw group (19 patients) and the iliac screw group (23 patients). Operative data, reduction quality, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of unplanned reoperation was significantly different between patients treated with S2AI screws than in those treated with iliac screws (0 versus 6, p = 0.02). The mean intraoperative estimated blood loss was 405.26 ± 229.67 mL in the S2AI screw group and 539.13 ± 246.32 mL in the iliac screw group (P = 0.08). No significant difference was observed in either group regarding the quality of reduction, functional outcome, or low back pain. The reduction quality based on the Matta criteria and excellent/good outcomes were 21/2 in the iliac screw group and 17/2 in the S2AI screw group. The functional outcomes based on the Majeed score and excellent/good/fair outcomes were 17/3/3 in the iliac screw group and 17/1/1 in the S2AI screw group. No complications, including implant breakage, loosening of the implant, or loss of reduction were found in either group during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both S2AI screws and iliac screws were effective in the treatment of sacral fractures. The use of S2AI screws, however, was independently associated with fewer unplanned reoperations for surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, and symptoms of screw protrusion than the use of iliac screws.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16200,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Investigative Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Investigative Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2021.2022253\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2021.2022253","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较骶髂侧(S2AI)螺钉内固定与髂螺钉内固定技术治疗骶骨骨折的近期疗效。方法:对2015年9月至2020年5月由同一外科医生行腰骨盆固定的42例骶骨骨折患者进行分析。患者分为S2AI螺钉组(19例)和髂螺钉组(23例)。评估手术资料、复位质量、术后并发症和功能结果。结果:与髂螺钉组相比,S2AI螺钉组的意外再手术发生率有显著性差异(0比6,p = 0.02)。S2AI螺钉组术中平均预估出血量为405.26±229.67 mL,髂螺钉组539.13±246.32 mL (P = 0.08)。两组在复位质量、功能结局或腰痛方面均无显著差异。基于Matta标准的复位质量和优/良结果,髂螺钉组为2.1 /2,S2AI螺钉组为17/2。基于Majeed评分和优/良/一般评分的功能评分,髂螺钉组为17/3/3,S2AI螺钉组为17/1/1。随访期间,两组均未发现假体断裂、假体松动或复位丢失等并发症。结论:S2AI螺钉与髂螺钉均可有效治疗骶骨骨折。然而,与髂螺钉相比,S2AI螺钉的使用与手术部位感染、伤口裂开和螺钉突出症状的意外再手术较少独立相关。
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
S2-Alar-Iliac Screw Fixation versus Iliac Screw Fixation in the Treatment of Sacral Fractures.

Purpose: To compare the short-term therapeutic effects of S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation and iliac screw fixation techniques in managing sacral fractures.

Methods: From September 2015 to May 2020, 42 patients with sacral fractures who underwent lumbopelvic fixation by a single surgeon were analyzed. The patients were divided into the S2AI screw group (19 patients) and the iliac screw group (23 patients). Operative data, reduction quality, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes were evaluated.

Results: The incidence of unplanned reoperation was significantly different between patients treated with S2AI screws than in those treated with iliac screws (0 versus 6, p = 0.02). The mean intraoperative estimated blood loss was 405.26 ± 229.67 mL in the S2AI screw group and 539.13 ± 246.32 mL in the iliac screw group (P = 0.08). No significant difference was observed in either group regarding the quality of reduction, functional outcome, or low back pain. The reduction quality based on the Matta criteria and excellent/good outcomes were 21/2 in the iliac screw group and 17/2 in the S2AI screw group. The functional outcomes based on the Majeed score and excellent/good/fair outcomes were 17/3/3 in the iliac screw group and 17/1/1 in the S2AI screw group. No complications, including implant breakage, loosening of the implant, or loss of reduction were found in either group during follow-up.

Conclusion: Both S2AI screws and iliac screws were effective in the treatment of sacral fractures. The use of S2AI screws, however, was independently associated with fewer unplanned reoperations for surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, and symptoms of screw protrusion than the use of iliac screws.

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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative Surgery publishes peer-reviewed scientific articles for the advancement of surgery, to the ultimate benefit of patient care and rehabilitation. It is the only journal that encompasses the individual and collaborative efforts of scientists in human and veterinary medicine, dentistry, basic and applied sciences, engineering, and law and ethics. The journal is dedicated to the publication of outstanding articles of interest to the surgical research community.
期刊最新文献
Anterior, Posterior and Anterior-Posterior Approaches for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. The HIF-1α/PKM2 Feedback Loop in Relation to EGFR Mutational Status in Lung Adenocarcinoma. Posttranscriptional Regulation of Intestinal Mucosal Growth and Adaptation by Noncoding RNAs in Critical Surgical Disorders. Statement of Retraction: Liver X Receptors Activation Attenuates Ischemia Reperfusion Injury of Liver Graft in Rats. Correlation Between Basal Metabolic Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Gastric Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study.
×
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