Journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2022
The Use of Carbon Fiber Implants for Impending or Existing Pathologic Fractures.
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.
Herzog Leah N, Traven Sophia A, Walton Zeke J, Leddy Lee R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility and complications of using carbon fiber implants (CFIs) compared with standard titanium alloy (TI) intramedullary implants for stabilization of impending or existing pathologic fractures.
DESIGN: Retrospective comparison.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-four patients undergoing intramedullary fixation of 100 impending or existing pathologic fractures between 2014-2019 were identified for inclusion.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was postoperative complications. Other outcomes included implant type, pathology, indication, and adjuvant therapy.
RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of cases used a CFI, whereas 47% of cases used a TI. There were no differences between groups with regard to anatomic location (P = 0.218), indication for surgery (P = 0.066), histology (P = 0.306), or postoperative adjuvant therapy (P = 0.308). Nineteen percent of cases incurred a postoperative complication in each group (P = 0.530), and no differences were noted with regard to complication type including implant failure (P = 0.442) and wound complications (P = 0.322). There was a cost saving of $400 with TI implants compared with CFI.
CONCLUSIONS: This is a high-risk population for postoperative complications after stabilization of pathologic fractures. Although there were no statistical differences in complications between CFI and TI, implant choice depends on patient characteristics and surgeon preference.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
DESIGN: Retrospective comparison.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-four patients undergoing intramedullary fixation of 100 impending or existing pathologic fractures between 2014-2019 were identified for inclusion.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was postoperative complications. Other outcomes included implant type, pathology, indication, and adjuvant therapy.
RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of cases used a CFI, whereas 47% of cases used a TI. There were no differences between groups with regard to anatomic location (P = 0.218), indication for surgery (P = 0.066), histology (P = 0.306), or postoperative adjuvant therapy (P = 0.308). Nineteen percent of cases incurred a postoperative complication in each group (P = 0.530), and no differences were noted with regard to complication type including implant failure (P = 0.442) and wound complications (P = 0.322). There was a cost saving of $400 with TI implants compared with CFI.
CONCLUSIONS: This is a high-risk population for postoperative complications after stabilization of pathologic fractures. Although there were no statistical differences in complications between CFI and TI, implant choice depends on patient characteristics and surgeon preference.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.