Journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2017
Does Provisional Plating of Closed Tibia Fractures Have Higher Complication Rates?
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.
Haller Justin M, Githens Michael, Scolaro John, Firoozabadi Reza
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare infection and nonunion rates after provisional plating (PP) with standard reduction (SR) techniques for closed tibia fractures treated with an intramedullary nail.
DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study.
SETTING: Level 1 academic trauma center.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Of the 348 closed tibia fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association/Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen 42) treated using an intramedullary nail from January 2007 through June 2015, 231 (40 PP and 191 SR) patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
INTERVENTION: The patients received either a provisional plate or an SR before intramedullary nail placement.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Infection and nonunion.
RESULTS: The PP cohort had a significantly higher proportion of high-energy injury mechanism and a significantly higher proportion of diabetes than the SR cohort. We were unable to demonstrate a difference in rates of infection [PP cohort (1/40, 2.5%) vs. SR cohort (6/191, 3.1%), P = 1.0], nonunion [PP cohort (3/40, 7.5%) vs. SR cohort (9/191, 4.7%), P = 0.44], or malunion [PP cohort (0/40, 0%) vs. SR cohort (8/191, 4.2%), P = 0.36]. Symptomatic implant removal was similar between the 2 groups [PP cohort (4/40, 10%) vs. SR cohort (27/191, 14%), P = 0.61].
CONCLUSION: PP can be used for complex, closed tibia fractures without an increased risk of infection, nonunion, and malunion compared with standard closed reduction techniques.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study.
SETTING: Level 1 academic trauma center.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Of the 348 closed tibia fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association/Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen 42) treated using an intramedullary nail from January 2007 through June 2015, 231 (40 PP and 191 SR) patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
INTERVENTION: The patients received either a provisional plate or an SR before intramedullary nail placement.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Infection and nonunion.
RESULTS: The PP cohort had a significantly higher proportion of high-energy injury mechanism and a significantly higher proportion of diabetes than the SR cohort. We were unable to demonstrate a difference in rates of infection [PP cohort (1/40, 2.5%) vs. SR cohort (6/191, 3.1%), P = 1.0], nonunion [PP cohort (3/40, 7.5%) vs. SR cohort (9/191, 4.7%), P = 0.44], or malunion [PP cohort (0/40, 0%) vs. SR cohort (8/191, 4.2%), P = 0.36]. Symptomatic implant removal was similar between the 2 groups [PP cohort (4/40, 10%) vs. SR cohort (27/191, 14%), P = 0.61].
CONCLUSION: PP can be used for complex, closed tibia fractures without an increased risk of infection, nonunion, and malunion compared with standard closed reduction techniques.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Academic Medical CentersAdultAgedBone NailsBone PlatesCohort StudiesFemaleFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryFracture HealingFractures, UnunitedHumansIncidenceInjury Severity ScoreMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSurgical Wound InfectionTibial Fractures