Comparing Multipin Clamps With Outriggers With Standard Clamps for Lower Extremity Periarticular External Fixation: Similar Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes.

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Shannon Tse, Aziz Saade, Ijezie Ikwuezunma, Cody L Walters, Samuel K Simister, Augustine M Saiz, Ellen Fitzpatrick, Gillian Soles, Mark A Lee, Sean T Campbell
{"title":"Comparing Multipin Clamps With Outriggers With Standard Clamps for Lower Extremity Periarticular External Fixation: Similar Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes.","authors":"Shannon Tse, Aziz Saade, Ijezie Ikwuezunma, Cody L Walters, Samuel K Simister, Augustine M Saiz, Ellen Fitzpatrick, Gillian Soles, Mark A Lee, Sean T Campbell","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Staged treatment of high-energy periarticular tibia fractures involves temporization with closed reduction and external fixation, aiming to provide early reduction and stabilization while mitigating soft-tissue complications. Various external fixator configurations exist, including those that use a \"multipin\" clamp capable of holding multiple pins but limiting pin placement to a single plane. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes and associated costs of standard and multipin outrigger clamp constructs in tibial plateau and pilon fractures treated with temporary external fixation. We hypothesized that use of the multipin clamp may be associated with poorly aligned reductions and increased complication rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of 100 patients with periarticular tibial plateau (AO/OTA: 41B/C) or pilon (43B/C) fracture at a Level 1 trauma center from 2014 to 2023 was conducted. Patient, injury, and complication characteristics were collected. Patients were categorized based on the external fixator clamp used: multipin (MP) or standard (S). Clinical outcomes and complication rates were assessed. Radiographic alignment was evaluated by the change in anterior and lateral distal tibial angles, and sagittal plane translation for pilon fractures, and medial and posterior proximal tibial angles for plateau fractures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>70 patients underwent standard (25 pilon, 45 plateau) and 30 multipin (10 pilon, 20 plateau) external fixation. MP and S groups showed no notable differences in demographics or injury characteristics. Both groups demonstrated comparable complication rates and radiological alignment outcomes, with no notable differences observed. MP constructs were more costly than standard systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this retrospective study of 100 patients, there was no difference in radiographic or clinical outcomes between the standard frame and multipin frame groups. Typical costs for the multipin frame constructs were $635 to $1249 more than the standard frame constructs.</p>","PeriodicalId":45062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","volume":"8 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473059/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00279","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Staged treatment of high-energy periarticular tibia fractures involves temporization with closed reduction and external fixation, aiming to provide early reduction and stabilization while mitigating soft-tissue complications. Various external fixator configurations exist, including those that use a "multipin" clamp capable of holding multiple pins but limiting pin placement to a single plane. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes and associated costs of standard and multipin outrigger clamp constructs in tibial plateau and pilon fractures treated with temporary external fixation. We hypothesized that use of the multipin clamp may be associated with poorly aligned reductions and increased complication rates.

Methods: A retrospective review of 100 patients with periarticular tibial plateau (AO/OTA: 41B/C) or pilon (43B/C) fracture at a Level 1 trauma center from 2014 to 2023 was conducted. Patient, injury, and complication characteristics were collected. Patients were categorized based on the external fixator clamp used: multipin (MP) or standard (S). Clinical outcomes and complication rates were assessed. Radiographic alignment was evaluated by the change in anterior and lateral distal tibial angles, and sagittal plane translation for pilon fractures, and medial and posterior proximal tibial angles for plateau fractures.

Results: 70 patients underwent standard (25 pilon, 45 plateau) and 30 multipin (10 pilon, 20 plateau) external fixation. MP and S groups showed no notable differences in demographics or injury characteristics. Both groups demonstrated comparable complication rates and radiological alignment outcomes, with no notable differences observed. MP constructs were more costly than standard systems.

Conclusion: In this retrospective study of 100 patients, there was no difference in radiographic or clinical outcomes between the standard frame and multipin frame groups. Typical costs for the multipin frame constructs were $635 to $1249 more than the standard frame constructs.

在下肢关节周围外固定术中使用多针夹具、外固定器和标准夹具的比较:相似的放射学和临床结果
导言:高能量胫骨关节周围骨折的分期治疗包括暂时性闭合复位和外固定,目的是尽早复位和稳定,同时减少软组织并发症。目前存在多种外固定器配置,包括使用 "多针 "夹钳的外固定器,这种夹钳能够固定多根钢针,但钢针的放置仅限于一个平面。本研究的目的是比较胫骨平台和皮隆骨折临时外固定治疗中标准和多针支腿夹结构的临床和影像学效果以及相关费用。我们假设,使用多针夹钳可能与对齐复位不良和并发症发生率增加有关:我们对一家一级创伤中心从 2014 年至 2023 年收治的 100 例胫骨平台周围(AO/OTA:41B/C)或皮隆(43B/C)骨折患者进行了回顾性研究。研究收集了患者、损伤和并发症特征。根据使用的外固定器夹钳对患者进行分类:多针(MP)或标准(S)。对临床结果和并发症发生率进行了评估。通过胫骨远端前角和外侧角的变化以及矢状面平移(皮隆骨折)和胫骨近端内侧角和后侧角的变化(高原骨折)来评估放射学对位情况:70 名患者接受了标准(25 例皮隆骨折,45 例高原骨折)和 30 例多针(10 例皮隆骨折,20 例高原骨折)外固定术。MP组和S组在人口统计学和损伤特征方面没有明显差异。两组的并发症发生率和放射学对位结果相当,无明显差异。MP结构的成本高于标准系统:在这项对 100 名患者进行的回顾性研究中,标准框架组和多针框架组在放射学或临床结果上没有差异。多针框架结构的典型费用比标准框架结构高出 635 美元至 1249 美元。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
282
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信