Surgical neurology international · 2024
A new device to treat ping-pong skull fractures: The hammer puller technique. A comparative analysis using a realistic simulation model.
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.
Neto Carlos Dos Reis Lisboa, Coelho Giselle, Figueiredo Eberval Gadelha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe a new surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong skull fractures and to evaluate its efficacy in a realistic simulation model compared to the dissector elevation technique.
METHODS: A total of 64 fractures were obtained using 16 model units, each with four fractures (two frontal and two parietal). The hammer puller technique was applied for left-sided fractures and the dissector technique for right-sided fractures. The variables evaluated were fracture repair time, fracture volume, fracture corrected volume, and fracture correction percentage. Fractures were separated into groups according to the surgical technique used (hammer or dissector) and the bone fractured (frontal or parietal). Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi® software (version 2.3) using Student's t-test.
RESULTS: A complete degree of fracture correction was achieved with both techniques, demonstrating a sufficient performance in the correction of the deformity. The hammer technique was shown to be faster in correcting frontal bone depressions with 20.1 ± 7.8 s compared to 31.3 ± 4.7 s for the dissector technique, P < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference for parietal applications (P = 0.405).
CONCLUSION: This study describes a new minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong fractures. Comparative analysis showed that both techniques were equally effective but that the hammer puller technique was more efficient than the dissector elevation technique, especially for frontal bone fractures.
METHODS: A total of 64 fractures were obtained using 16 model units, each with four fractures (two frontal and two parietal). The hammer puller technique was applied for left-sided fractures and the dissector technique for right-sided fractures. The variables evaluated were fracture repair time, fracture volume, fracture corrected volume, and fracture correction percentage. Fractures were separated into groups according to the surgical technique used (hammer or dissector) and the bone fractured (frontal or parietal). Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi® software (version 2.3) using Student's t-test.
RESULTS: A complete degree of fracture correction was achieved with both techniques, demonstrating a sufficient performance in the correction of the deformity. The hammer technique was shown to be faster in correcting frontal bone depressions with 20.1 ± 7.8 s compared to 31.3 ± 4.7 s for the dissector technique, P < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference for parietal applications (P = 0.405).
CONCLUSION: This study describes a new minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong fractures. Comparative analysis showed that both techniques were equally effective but that the hammer puller technique was more efficient than the dissector elevation technique, especially for frontal bone fractures.