Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association · 2024
What is the appropriate revascularisation approach in traumatic popliteal artery injury?
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.
Izawa Yuta, Futamura Kentaro, Nishida Masahiro, Hasegawa Masayuki, Suzuki Takafumi, Tsuihiji Kanako, Tsuchida Yoshihiko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Popliteal artery injury (PAI) is sometimes accompanied by proximal tibial fracture or knee dislocation. We hypothesized that revascularisation approach should be selected depending on the associated injury. The purpose of this study is to propose revascularisation approach that does not interfere with definitive surgery.
METHODS: Patients with PAI who were treated between 2013 and 2023 were included. Associated injuries, revascularisation approach, and skin incision for the definitive surgery were investigated. We investigated whether varus-valgus instability remained as an outcome.
RESULTS: 21 limbs with PAI were included. There were 6 cases with proximal tibial fracture. Medial incision was used in 2 cases and crank shaped incision in 4 cases. In 4 cases of crank shaped incision, osteosynthesis was performed through a crank shaped incision. There were 8 cases with knee dislocation. Medial incision was used in 1 case, S shaped incision in 4 cases, and crank shaped incision in 3 cases. In cases of S shaped incision, extra-articular ligament was repaired through independent incisions. In three cases of crank shaped incision, it was not possible to repair extra-articular ligament because of interfere with the initial incision. As a result, knee joint instability remained. There were 7 cases without proximal tibial fracture or knee dislocation. Medial incision was used in 1 case, S shaped incision in 3 cases, and crank shaped incision in 3 cases. There was no interference between the incisions for revascularisation and for definitive surgery.
CONCLUSION: For PAI, revascularisation approaches should be selected depending on the associated injury.
METHODS: Patients with PAI who were treated between 2013 and 2023 were included. Associated injuries, revascularisation approach, and skin incision for the definitive surgery were investigated. We investigated whether varus-valgus instability remained as an outcome.
RESULTS: 21 limbs with PAI were included. There were 6 cases with proximal tibial fracture. Medial incision was used in 2 cases and crank shaped incision in 4 cases. In 4 cases of crank shaped incision, osteosynthesis was performed through a crank shaped incision. There were 8 cases with knee dislocation. Medial incision was used in 1 case, S shaped incision in 4 cases, and crank shaped incision in 3 cases. In cases of S shaped incision, extra-articular ligament was repaired through independent incisions. In three cases of crank shaped incision, it was not possible to repair extra-articular ligament because of interfere with the initial incision. As a result, knee joint instability remained. There were 7 cases without proximal tibial fracture or knee dislocation. Medial incision was used in 1 case, S shaped incision in 3 cases, and crank shaped incision in 3 cases. There was no interference between the incisions for revascularisation and for definitive surgery.
CONCLUSION: For PAI, revascularisation approaches should be selected depending on the associated injury.