Foot & ankle international · 2017
Effect of CT on Management Plan in Malleolar Ankle Fractures.
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.
Kumar Ashwani, Mishra Puneet, Tandon Anupama, Arora Rajesh, Chadha Manish
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Conventionally ankle fractures have been classified using plain radiographs. Because of complex 3-dimensional anatomy and complexity of injuries, plain radiographs may not always be able to clearly depict the complete fracture pattern. There is a paucity of studies regarding the utility of computed tomography (CT) scanning in malleolar ankle fractures (MAFs). Hence, we conducted this study to further understand the role of the CT scan in MAFs.
METHODS: A prospective study of 56 consecutive malleolar ankle fractures was conducted. In the first evaluation by a team of 3 observers, a management plan was made based on plain radiographs. All patients received a CT scan evaluation with a standard protocol. The second evaluation by the same team included formulating an operative plan based on the CT.
RESULTS: In 13 (23.2%) cases, the management plan changed after CT evaluation. In most of the cases, the change in the management plan included an alteration in fixation of the posterior malleolus followed by lateral malleolus in 4 cases. Most of the changes took place in AO 44 type C followed by types B and A. Maximum change was noted in trimalleolar fractures followed by bimalleolar and unimalleolar. The most common morphological characteristic fracture identified on CT scan that was not evident on plain radiography was Chaput fracture in 17 cases.
CONCLUSION: CT scan evaluation of MAFs changed the management plan in a significant number of cases, especially if the fractured fragment included a posterior malleolus, AO type C, and/or if 2 or more malleoli were fractured as noted on plain x rays.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
METHODS: A prospective study of 56 consecutive malleolar ankle fractures was conducted. In the first evaluation by a team of 3 observers, a management plan was made based on plain radiographs. All patients received a CT scan evaluation with a standard protocol. The second evaluation by the same team included formulating an operative plan based on the CT.
RESULTS: In 13 (23.2%) cases, the management plan changed after CT evaluation. In most of the cases, the change in the management plan included an alteration in fixation of the posterior malleolus followed by lateral malleolus in 4 cases. Most of the changes took place in AO 44 type C followed by types B and A. Maximum change was noted in trimalleolar fractures followed by bimalleolar and unimalleolar. The most common morphological characteristic fracture identified on CT scan that was not evident on plain radiography was Chaput fracture in 17 cases.
CONCLUSION: CT scan evaluation of MAFs changed the management plan in a significant number of cases, especially if the fractured fragment included a posterior malleolus, AO type C, and/or if 2 or more malleoli were fractured as noted on plain x rays.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.