European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2017
Single- versus double-bundle suture button reconstruction of the forearm interosseous membrane for the chronic Essex-Lopresti lesion.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Gaspar Michael P, Kearns Kenneth A, Culp Randall W, Osterman A Lee, Kane Patrick M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Reconstruction of the ruptured interosseous membrane (IOM) is critical to restore forearm stability for the chronic Essex-Lopresti injury. Positive outcomes have been reported following IOM reconstruction with a single-bundle suture button (Mini-Tightrope) construct, although recent work suggests that double-bundle Mini-TightRope® IOM reconstruction is biomechanically superior. The purpose of this study was to determine whether double-bundle Mini-TightRope® reconstruction of the forearm IOM results in superior clinical outcomes to the single-bundle technique.
METHODS: Five patients with chronic Essex-Lopresti injuries treated with double-bundle Mini-TightRope® IOM reconstruction were matched to five patients treated with single-bundle Mini-TightRope® reconstruction. Improvement in clinical examination measures and patient-reported outcomes was compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Results were good to excellent in all 10 patients. At final follow-up, forearm rotation was significantly better in the single-bundle group, while maintenance of ulnar variance was better in the double-bundle group. No significant differences were noted between the two groups for any other numerical outcomes, and no complications occurred.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that while IOM reconstruction with a double-bundle Mini-TightRope® construct results in greater resistance to proximal migration of the radius in the intermediate term, there is a modest concomitant loss of forearm rotation when compared to single-bundle reconstruction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV.
METHODS: Five patients with chronic Essex-Lopresti injuries treated with double-bundle Mini-TightRope® IOM reconstruction were matched to five patients treated with single-bundle Mini-TightRope® reconstruction. Improvement in clinical examination measures and patient-reported outcomes was compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Results were good to excellent in all 10 patients. At final follow-up, forearm rotation was significantly better in the single-bundle group, while maintenance of ulnar variance was better in the double-bundle group. No significant differences were noted between the two groups for any other numerical outcomes, and no complications occurred.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that while IOM reconstruction with a double-bundle Mini-TightRope® construct results in greater resistance to proximal migration of the radius in the intermediate term, there is a modest concomitant loss of forearm rotation when compared to single-bundle reconstruction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV.