Foot & ankle international · 2013
Common pitfalls in syndesmotic rupture management: a clinical audit.
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.
Symeonidis Panagiotis D, Iselin Lukas D, Chehade Mellick, Stavrou Peter
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Syndesmotic injuries occur in up to 11% of all ankle injuries. Whereas the optimal fixation of syndesmotic injuries remains controversial, pitfalls in their management can lead to poor outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all ankle fractures operated on at a level 1 trauma center over a 7-year period. All cases with syndesmotic fixation were classified and patients' notes and x-rays were reviewed. The timing of definitive syndesmotic fixation, the type of fixation (screw size and number, number of cortices), and the number of unplanned, syndesmotic-related reoperations were recorded. Seventy syndesmotic ruptures were operated on during the study period.
RESULTS: There were 19 unplanned reoperations. The 3 reasons for reoperation identified were failure to diagnose the syndesmotic injury 9/19 (47%), failure to achieve an anatomic reduction 6/19 (31%), and loss of reduction due to fixation failure 4/19 (21%). The type of fixation was not correlated with the failure rate, nor were the experience of the surgeon, the gender or the age of the patient.
CONCLUSIONS: The reoperation rate for syndesmotic fixation may be higher than previously thought. In order to reduce the pitfalls in their treatment, we emphazise the importance of 3 critical points in the management of these injuries: suspect the injury, document the stability of the syndesmosis, and reduce the fibula anatomically.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all ankle fractures operated on at a level 1 trauma center over a 7-year period. All cases with syndesmotic fixation were classified and patients' notes and x-rays were reviewed. The timing of definitive syndesmotic fixation, the type of fixation (screw size and number, number of cortices), and the number of unplanned, syndesmotic-related reoperations were recorded. Seventy syndesmotic ruptures were operated on during the study period.
RESULTS: There were 19 unplanned reoperations. The 3 reasons for reoperation identified were failure to diagnose the syndesmotic injury 9/19 (47%), failure to achieve an anatomic reduction 6/19 (31%), and loss of reduction due to fixation failure 4/19 (21%). The type of fixation was not correlated with the failure rate, nor were the experience of the surgeon, the gender or the age of the patient.
CONCLUSIONS: The reoperation rate for syndesmotic fixation may be higher than previously thought. In order to reduce the pitfalls in their treatment, we emphazise the importance of 3 critical points in the management of these injuries: suspect the injury, document the stability of the syndesmosis, and reduce the fibula anatomically.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.