MedElevator
Войти в исследования Injury · 2018
Comparison of two closed surgical techniques at isolated pediatric radial neck fractures.
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.
Kalem Mahmut, Şahin Ercan, Kocaoğlu Hakan, Başarır Kerem, Kınık Hakan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This paper aims to compare the clinical and radiological results of children operated using elastic stable intramedullary nailing as described by Métaizeau to those with the closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP).
METHODS: Results of 21 pediatric patients with radial neck fracture who were treated by two pediatric surgeons between January 2011 and December 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. 10 were treated with the Métaizeau method versus 11 with the CRPP. Operation time, fluoroscopic exposure time, Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) and radiological assessment at final follow-up 1 year or greater and complications were main outcome measures.
RESULTS: The MEPS were excellent in all the patients of both groups. Reduction quality was excellent in 8 patients and good in 2 of the Métaizeau, and excellent in 9 and good in 2 of the CRPP. The fluoroscopy and operating times were statistically significantly greater, 3-fold and 2-fold respectively, in the Métaizeau method compared to the CRPP with comparable functional and radiological results.
CONCLUSION: Surgeon should adhere to a closed surgical method of his/her experience for excellent result.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.
METHODS: Results of 21 pediatric patients with radial neck fracture who were treated by two pediatric surgeons between January 2011 and December 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. 10 were treated with the Métaizeau method versus 11 with the CRPP. Operation time, fluoroscopic exposure time, Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) and radiological assessment at final follow-up 1 year or greater and complications were main outcome measures.
RESULTS: The MEPS were excellent in all the patients of both groups. Reduction quality was excellent in 8 patients and good in 2 of the Métaizeau, and excellent in 9 and good in 2 of the CRPP. The fluoroscopy and operating times were statistically significantly greater, 3-fold and 2-fold respectively, in the Métaizeau method compared to the CRPP with comparable functional and radiological results.
CONCLUSION: Surgeon should adhere to a closed surgical method of his/her experience for excellent result.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.