Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2019
Surgical outcomes for post-traumatic stiffness after elbow fracture: comparison between open and arthroscopic procedures for intra- and extra-articular elbow fractures.
Сравнительное 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.
Kwak Jae-Man, Sun Yucheng, Kholinne Erica, Koh Kyoung-Hwan, Jeon In-Ho
Аннотация
HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty has a comparable outcome to that of the corresponding open procedure.
METHODS: Patients treated with osteocapsular arthroplasty for post-traumatic stiffness were assigned to open procedure (OPEN) and arthroscopic procedure (ARTHRO) groups. The clinical outcomes were measured based on range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and visual analog scale (VAS) score. Based on the initial trauma, the patients were grouped into either intra-articular fracture (I) or extra-articular fracture (E) groups, followed by comparison of the 2 groups.
RESULTS: The overall, ROM, VAS, and MEPS scores showed improvement in both groups. Preoperative VAS scores improved from 6.6 ± 1.4 to 2.2 ± 0.9 following OPEN and from 6.5 ± 1.2 to 2.1 ± 1.0 following ARTHRO. Preoperative flexion improved from 88° ± 14° to 113° ± 17° following OPEN and from 102° ± 15° to 122° ± 8° following ARTHRO. Preoperative extension improved from 36° ± 14° to 17° ± 12° following OPEN and from 30° ± 8° to 15° ± 7.4° following ARTHRO. Preoperative MEPS improved from 48.9 ± 11.5 to 80.0 ± 14.8 following OPEN and from 52.3 ± 12.2 to 80.8 ± 7.9 following ARTHRO. All values for the clinical outcomes were worse in group I than in group E.
CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty is comparable to the corresponding open procedure with regard to the use of our indications. The clinical outcomes in the intra-articular fracture group as a previous trauma were worse than those in the extra-articular fracture group.
METHODS: Patients treated with osteocapsular arthroplasty for post-traumatic stiffness were assigned to open procedure (OPEN) and arthroscopic procedure (ARTHRO) groups. The clinical outcomes were measured based on range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and visual analog scale (VAS) score. Based on the initial trauma, the patients were grouped into either intra-articular fracture (I) or extra-articular fracture (E) groups, followed by comparison of the 2 groups.
RESULTS: The overall, ROM, VAS, and MEPS scores showed improvement in both groups. Preoperative VAS scores improved from 6.6 ± 1.4 to 2.2 ± 0.9 following OPEN and from 6.5 ± 1.2 to 2.1 ± 1.0 following ARTHRO. Preoperative flexion improved from 88° ± 14° to 113° ± 17° following OPEN and from 102° ± 15° to 122° ± 8° following ARTHRO. Preoperative extension improved from 36° ± 14° to 17° ± 12° following OPEN and from 30° ± 8° to 15° ± 7.4° following ARTHRO. Preoperative MEPS improved from 48.9 ± 11.5 to 80.0 ± 14.8 following OPEN and from 52.3 ± 12.2 to 80.8 ± 7.9 following ARTHRO. All values for the clinical outcomes were worse in group I than in group E.
CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty is comparable to the corresponding open procedure with regard to the use of our indications. The clinical outcomes in the intra-articular fracture group as a previous trauma were worse than those in the extra-articular fracture group.