International orthopaedics · 2021
Multiplanar fracture reducer versus manual traction in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures with intramedullary nails.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Zhao Kuo, Zhang Junzhe, Wang Zhongzheng, Wang Yuchuan, Li Junyong, Hou Zhiyong, Zhang Yingze, Chen Wei, Zhang Qi
Аннотация
OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to propose a new traction device, a multiplanar fracture reducer (MFR), for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures with intramedullary nails (IMN). The efficiencies of the multiplanar fracture reducer and manual traction (MT) in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures with IMN were compared.
METHODS: From January 2019 to January 2020, a total of 79 patients were enrolled in this study, among whom 38 were treated with MFR while 41 were treated with MT. Their demographics and fracture characteristics, surgical data, and prognostic data between the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: The mean number of intra-operative fluoroscopies in the MFR group was less than that in the MT group (19.4 vs 21.2, p < 0.001); surgical procedures involving open reduction were more in the MT group than in MFR group (0 vs 5, p = 0.026); there were less assistants in the MFR group than in the MT group (1 vs 1.9, p < 0.001), while the average Lysholm Knee Function Score and knee flexion were 92.7 ± 2.0 and 128.8 ± 1.4 in the MFR group, and 91.9 ± 2.1 and 127.5 ± 1.8 in the MT group, respectively. Both LKFS and knee flexion in the MFR group were significantly better than those in the MT group (p = 0.032 and p < 0.001). The remaining data between the two groups were comparable.
CONCLUSION: MFR is a safe and effective device for the minimal invasive treatment of tibial shaft fractures fixed with IMN.
METHODS: From January 2019 to January 2020, a total of 79 patients were enrolled in this study, among whom 38 were treated with MFR while 41 were treated with MT. Their demographics and fracture characteristics, surgical data, and prognostic data between the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: The mean number of intra-operative fluoroscopies in the MFR group was less than that in the MT group (19.4 vs 21.2, p < 0.001); surgical procedures involving open reduction were more in the MT group than in MFR group (0 vs 5, p = 0.026); there were less assistants in the MFR group than in the MT group (1 vs 1.9, p < 0.001), while the average Lysholm Knee Function Score and knee flexion were 92.7 ± 2.0 and 128.8 ± 1.4 in the MFR group, and 91.9 ± 2.1 and 127.5 ± 1.8 in the MT group, respectively. Both LKFS and knee flexion in the MFR group were significantly better than those in the MT group (p = 0.032 and p < 0.001). The remaining data between the two groups were comparable.
CONCLUSION: MFR is a safe and effective device for the minimal invasive treatment of tibial shaft fractures fixed with IMN.