Shoulder & elbow · 2022
Outcomes of elbow fracture-dislocations treated with and without an Internal Joint Stabilizer of the Elbow (IJS-E): A retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sheth Mihir, Price Matthew Bent, Taylor Tristen, Mitchell Scott
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The internal joint stabilizer of the elbow (IJS-E) adds to techniques for maintaining reduction of elbow fracture-dislocations while allowing early motion. Literature on this device is limited to small case series.
METHODS: Retrospective comparison of function, motion and complications in patients who sustained elbow fracture-dislocations reconstructed with (30 patients) and without (34 patients) an IJS-E by a single surgeon. The minimum follow up was 10 weeks.
RESULTS: The mean follow up was 16 ± 17 months. The mean final flexion arc did not differ between the two groups, however patients without an IJS achieved greater pronation. There were no differences in mean Mayo Elbow Performance, Quick-DASH and pain scores. Five patients (17%) underwent IJS-E removal. The rates of capsular releases for stiffness after 12 weeks and recurrent instability were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of an IJS-E to supplement traditional repair of elbow fracture-dislocations does not appear to affect final function or motion, and appears to be effective in reducing the risk of recurrent instability in a group of patients deemed high risk. However, its use is weighed against a 17% rate of removal at early follow up and possibly inferior forearm rotation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort study, Level 3.
METHODS: Retrospective comparison of function, motion and complications in patients who sustained elbow fracture-dislocations reconstructed with (30 patients) and without (34 patients) an IJS-E by a single surgeon. The minimum follow up was 10 weeks.
RESULTS: The mean follow up was 16 ± 17 months. The mean final flexion arc did not differ between the two groups, however patients without an IJS achieved greater pronation. There were no differences in mean Mayo Elbow Performance, Quick-DASH and pain scores. Five patients (17%) underwent IJS-E removal. The rates of capsular releases for stiffness after 12 weeks and recurrent instability were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of an IJS-E to supplement traditional repair of elbow fracture-dislocations does not appear to affect final function or motion, and appears to be effective in reducing the risk of recurrent instability in a group of patients deemed high risk. However, its use is weighed against a 17% rate of removal at early follow up and possibly inferior forearm rotation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort study, Level 3.