International orthopaedics · 2013
Comparative clinical study on deformity correction accuracy of different external fixators.
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.
Eren Ilker, Eralp Levent, Kocaoglu Mehmet
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In this study, the correction accuracy of Smart Correction spatial fixators and of Ilizarov-type external fixators are compared in terms of deformity complexity.
METHODS: Seventy-seven (40 male, 37 female) bone segments of 57 patients treated with a Smart Correction device were compared with 94 (51 male, 43 female) segments of 68 patients treated with an Ilizarov fixator. Mean age of the Smart Correction group was 20.69 ± 12.94 years, and or the Ilizarov group 22.45 ± 12.18 years. Patients were categorised according to limb lengthening and the number of deformity planes.
RESULTS: A longer correction period was found with Ilizarov (66.53 ± 47.7 days) compared with Smart Correction (49.05 ± 35.6 days) devices. The bone healing index of the Ilizarov group was significantly better compared with the spatial group. Residual deformity after treatment was significantly lower with the Smart Correction device; however, this relationship could not be shown between subgroups. Although there was no significant difference between subgroups, mean residual deformity was higher with the increasing number of planes of the deformity.
CONCLUSIONS: The Smart Correction fixator is an accurate device that allows ease of application and planning. It demonstrates higher accuracy for correcting deformities compared with an Ilizarov external fixator. With an increasing number of planes, the difference between the two devices becomes even more pronounced. The relationship between the complexity of the deformity and residual deformity may possibly be significantly greater in favour of the Smart Correction fixator in a study with a larger sample size.
METHODS: Seventy-seven (40 male, 37 female) bone segments of 57 patients treated with a Smart Correction device were compared with 94 (51 male, 43 female) segments of 68 patients treated with an Ilizarov fixator. Mean age of the Smart Correction group was 20.69 ± 12.94 years, and or the Ilizarov group 22.45 ± 12.18 years. Patients were categorised according to limb lengthening and the number of deformity planes.
RESULTS: A longer correction period was found with Ilizarov (66.53 ± 47.7 days) compared with Smart Correction (49.05 ± 35.6 days) devices. The bone healing index of the Ilizarov group was significantly better compared with the spatial group. Residual deformity after treatment was significantly lower with the Smart Correction device; however, this relationship could not be shown between subgroups. Although there was no significant difference between subgroups, mean residual deformity was higher with the increasing number of planes of the deformity.
CONCLUSIONS: The Smart Correction fixator is an accurate device that allows ease of application and planning. It demonstrates higher accuracy for correcting deformities compared with an Ilizarov external fixator. With an increasing number of planes, the difference between the two devices becomes even more pronounced. The relationship between the complexity of the deformity and residual deformity may possibly be significantly greater in favour of the Smart Correction fixator in a study with a larger sample size.