The Journal of trauma · 1999
Tibial pilon fractures: a comparison of treatment methods.
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.
Pugh K J, Wolinsky P R, McAndrew M P, Johnson K D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This retrospective review of surgically treated distal tibia fractures was undertaken to determine whether treatment with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was more efficacious in achieving fracture union than one of two external fixation methods.
METHODS: Of the 60 study patients with pilon fractures, 21 patients were treated with an ankle-spanning half-pin external fixator, 15 patients with a single-ring hybrid external fixator, and 24 patients with ORIF. The severity of injuries was similar across groups.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups, although two below-knee amputations were required in the ORIF group. A greater (p = 0.03) number of malunions occurred in the fractures treated with external fixation when compared with those treated with ORIF. Fractures in the external fixator groups showed this significant tendency to lose their initial adequate reduction, independent of bone grafting or fibula fixation. There was no significant difference between groups in the need for bone grafting. There was a trend for patients treated with a single ring hybrid frame to require late bone grafting for metaphyseal-diaphyseal nonunion.
CONCLUSION: External fixation offers advantages in the treatment of the soft-tissue injury associated with pilon fractures, but malunion continues to be a problem with this method of fixation.
METHODS: Of the 60 study patients with pilon fractures, 21 patients were treated with an ankle-spanning half-pin external fixator, 15 patients with a single-ring hybrid external fixator, and 24 patients with ORIF. The severity of injuries was similar across groups.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups, although two below-knee amputations were required in the ORIF group. A greater (p = 0.03) number of malunions occurred in the fractures treated with external fixation when compared with those treated with ORIF. Fractures in the external fixator groups showed this significant tendency to lose their initial adequate reduction, independent of bone grafting or fibula fixation. There was no significant difference between groups in the need for bone grafting. There was a trend for patients treated with a single ring hybrid frame to require late bone grafting for metaphyseal-diaphyseal nonunion.
CONCLUSION: External fixation offers advantages in the treatment of the soft-tissue injury associated with pilon fractures, but malunion continues to be a problem with this method of fixation.