对于不稳定的桡骨远端骨折,使用掌侧锁定钢板的切开复位内固定和使用K针的切开复位经皮钉固定是否提供相似的功能和放射学结果?

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
SICOT-J Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1051/sicotj/2023015
Ahmad Radaideh, Jehad Abualadas, Yazan Anaqreh, Adham Alnemer, Ahmad Abdalmajeed Alghzawi, Rawan Abualadas, Mohammad Alawneh, Suhaib Bani Essa
{"title":"对于不稳定的桡骨远端骨折,使用掌侧锁定钢板的切开复位内固定和使用K针的切开复位经皮钉固定是否提供相似的功能和放射学结果?","authors":"Ahmad Radaideh,&nbsp;Jehad Abualadas,&nbsp;Yazan Anaqreh,&nbsp;Adham Alnemer,&nbsp;Ahmad Abdalmajeed Alghzawi,&nbsp;Rawan Abualadas,&nbsp;Mohammad Alawneh,&nbsp;Suhaib Bani Essa","doi":"10.1051/sicotj/2023015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are a common orthopedic injury, with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) being the two most frequently used methods for treating unstable DRFs. The optimal treatment approach for DRFs is still a matter of debate. Therefore, this retrospective analysis aimed to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of ORIF and CRPP to determine the most effective approach for treating unstable DRFs.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 89 patients were included in this retrospective study; 34 underwent CRPP and 55 underwent ORIF (61 males and 28 females, mean age: 35.5). Radiographic measurements of radial inclination, radial height, and volar tilt, as well as patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) scores for pain and function, were used to evaluate the functional and radiological outcomes during the final follow-up period, ranging from 1 to 4 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were significant improvements in the radiographic measurements for both groups, indicating a good reduction. However, the two fixation methods had no significant difference in radiographic measurements during the entire follow-up period. Regarding PRWE scores, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with patients in the CRPP group reporting better wrist function and less pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both CRPP and ORIF are effective methods for treating unstable DRFs. Achieving an acceptable reduction did not correlate with better pain management, function, or the ability to carry out day-to-day activities. However, patients treated with CRPP had better wrist function and less pain during follow-up. Radiographic measurements did not differ significantly between the two groups. Clinicians should consider closed-reduction percutaneous pinning as a viable and effective treatment option for distal radius fractures, particularly when optimal wrist function and pain management are important considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46378,"journal":{"name":"SICOT-J","volume":"9 ","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10288971/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does open reduction internal fixation using a volar locking plate and closed reduction percutaneous pinning using K wires provide similar functional and radiological outcomes for unstable distal radius fractures?\",\"authors\":\"Ahmad Radaideh,&nbsp;Jehad Abualadas,&nbsp;Yazan Anaqreh,&nbsp;Adham Alnemer,&nbsp;Ahmad Abdalmajeed Alghzawi,&nbsp;Rawan Abualadas,&nbsp;Mohammad Alawneh,&nbsp;Suhaib Bani Essa\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/sicotj/2023015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are a common orthopedic injury, with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) being the two most frequently used methods for treating unstable DRFs. The optimal treatment approach for DRFs is still a matter of debate. Therefore, this retrospective analysis aimed to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of ORIF and CRPP to determine the most effective approach for treating unstable DRFs.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 89 patients were included in this retrospective study; 34 underwent CRPP and 55 underwent ORIF (61 males and 28 females, mean age: 35.5). Radiographic measurements of radial inclination, radial height, and volar tilt, as well as patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) scores for pain and function, were used to evaluate the functional and radiological outcomes during the final follow-up period, ranging from 1 to 4 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were significant improvements in the radiographic measurements for both groups, indicating a good reduction. However, the two fixation methods had no significant difference in radiographic measurements during the entire follow-up period. Regarding PRWE scores, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with patients in the CRPP group reporting better wrist function and less pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both CRPP and ORIF are effective methods for treating unstable DRFs. Achieving an acceptable reduction did not correlate with better pain management, function, or the ability to carry out day-to-day activities. However, patients treated with CRPP had better wrist function and less pain during follow-up. Radiographic measurements did not differ significantly between the two groups. Clinicians should consider closed-reduction percutaneous pinning as a viable and effective treatment option for distal radius fractures, particularly when optimal wrist function and pain management are important considerations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SICOT-J\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10288971/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SICOT-J\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SICOT-J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:桡骨远端骨折(drf)是一种常见的骨科损伤,开放复位内固定(ORIF)和闭合复位经皮钉钉(CRPP)是治疗不稳定桡骨远端骨折最常用的两种方法。DRFs的最佳治疗方法仍然是一个有争议的问题。因此,本回顾性分析旨在比较ORIF和CRPP的功能和放射学结果,以确定治疗不稳定DRFs的最有效方法。材料与方法:回顾性研究共纳入89例患者;CRPP 34例,ORIF 55例(男61例,女28例,平均年龄35.5岁)。放射学测量桡骨倾角、桡骨高度和掌侧倾角,以及患者评定的腕关节疼痛和功能评估(PRWE)评分,用于评估最后随访期间(1至4年)的功能和放射学结果。结果:两组的x线测量均有显著改善,表明复位良好。然而,在整个随访期间,两种固定方法在影像学测量上没有显著差异。关于PRWE评分,两组之间存在显著差异,CRPP组患者报告腕部功能更好,疼痛更少。结论:CRPP和ORIF均是治疗不稳定DRFs的有效方法。实现可接受的减少与更好的疼痛管理、功能或进行日常活动的能力无关。然而,在随访期间,接受CRPP治疗的患者腕部功能较好,疼痛较少。两组间放射测量无显著差异。临床医生应考虑将闭合复位经皮钉固定作为桡骨远端骨折可行且有效的治疗选择,特别是当最佳腕功能和疼痛管理是重要考虑因素时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Does open reduction internal fixation using a volar locking plate and closed reduction percutaneous pinning using K wires provide similar functional and radiological outcomes for unstable distal radius fractures?

Does open reduction internal fixation using a volar locking plate and closed reduction percutaneous pinning using K wires provide similar functional and radiological outcomes for unstable distal radius fractures?

Does open reduction internal fixation using a volar locking plate and closed reduction percutaneous pinning using K wires provide similar functional and radiological outcomes for unstable distal radius fractures?

Does open reduction internal fixation using a volar locking plate and closed reduction percutaneous pinning using K wires provide similar functional and radiological outcomes for unstable distal radius fractures?

Background: Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are a common orthopedic injury, with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) being the two most frequently used methods for treating unstable DRFs. The optimal treatment approach for DRFs is still a matter of debate. Therefore, this retrospective analysis aimed to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of ORIF and CRPP to determine the most effective approach for treating unstable DRFs.

Material and methods: A total of 89 patients were included in this retrospective study; 34 underwent CRPP and 55 underwent ORIF (61 males and 28 females, mean age: 35.5). Radiographic measurements of radial inclination, radial height, and volar tilt, as well as patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) scores for pain and function, were used to evaluate the functional and radiological outcomes during the final follow-up period, ranging from 1 to 4 years.

Results: There were significant improvements in the radiographic measurements for both groups, indicating a good reduction. However, the two fixation methods had no significant difference in radiographic measurements during the entire follow-up period. Regarding PRWE scores, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with patients in the CRPP group reporting better wrist function and less pain.

Conclusions: Both CRPP and ORIF are effective methods for treating unstable DRFs. Achieving an acceptable reduction did not correlate with better pain management, function, or the ability to carry out day-to-day activities. However, patients treated with CRPP had better wrist function and less pain during follow-up. Radiographic measurements did not differ significantly between the two groups. Clinicians should consider closed-reduction percutaneous pinning as a viable and effective treatment option for distal radius fractures, particularly when optimal wrist function and pain management are important considerations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
SICOT-J
SICOT-J ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
14 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