Der Unfallchirurg · 2013
[Elastic stable intramedullary nailing of clavicular midshaft fractures: comparison of open vs closed fracture reduction].
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое 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.
Kraus T M, Martetschläger F, Schrödl C, Siebenlist S, Ganslmeier A, Kirchhoff C, Stöckle U
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of open reduction versus closed reduction of midclavicular fractures using elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) in both groups.
METHODS: Titanium elastic nails were used to treat 40 patients undergoing minimally invasive ESIN between December 2006 and July 2009. A total of 19 patients were treated with a closed reduction and 21 patients required open reduction.
RESULTS: The Constant Score revealed no significant differences between the two groups (closed 87.4±9.0; open 85.3±7.1) nor did the DASH Score (closed: 5.0±6.5; open 5.8±7.3). The strength measurement of shoulder abduction was consistent in each group: 75.7±22.0 N in the closed reduction group and 74.2±26.0 N in the group with open treatment.
CONCLUSION: There was no difference comparing right- and left-sided injuries and the outcomes were consistent irrespective of the treatment method. When appropriately indicated open and closed intramedullary nailing are very successful modalities of treatment. There were no significant differences in shoulder function after either procedure.
METHODS: Titanium elastic nails were used to treat 40 patients undergoing minimally invasive ESIN between December 2006 and July 2009. A total of 19 patients were treated with a closed reduction and 21 patients required open reduction.
RESULTS: The Constant Score revealed no significant differences between the two groups (closed 87.4±9.0; open 85.3±7.1) nor did the DASH Score (closed: 5.0±6.5; open 5.8±7.3). The strength measurement of shoulder abduction was consistent in each group: 75.7±22.0 N in the closed reduction group and 74.2±26.0 N in the group with open treatment.
CONCLUSION: There was no difference comparing right- and left-sided injuries and the outcomes were consistent irrespective of the treatment method. When appropriately indicated open and closed intramedullary nailing are very successful modalities of treatment. There were no significant differences in shoulder function after either procedure.