牵引夹板(EAVAST方案)与手术固定近端指骨骨折:患者结果的比较研究

Al Hopkins, Nicky Barry, S. Bowman, S. Sathasivam, Rohit Kumar, A. Preketes, M. Dowd
{"title":"牵引夹板(EAVAST方案)与手术固定近端指骨骨折:患者结果的比较研究","authors":"Al Hopkins, Nicky Barry, S. Bowman, S. Sathasivam, Rohit Kumar, A. Preketes, M. Dowd","doi":"10.34239/ajops.v5n1.265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Phalangeal fractures are common, frequently deformed and unstable, and are regularly managed operatively. However, closed methods of reduction are increasing. This study aimed to compare functional outcomes for a non-operative cohort using a skin traction method developed by the Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, termed ‘early active vector adjustable skin traction’ or EAVAST, compared to operatively managed patients as a potential alternative for the management proximal phalanx fractures.\nMethods: A prospective cohort study of patients who underwent operative fixation or traction using the EAVAST protocol between January 2018 and January 2020. Patients were managed on a case-by-case basis by fracture type and mechanism of injury. Functional outcomes were assessed at three months post intervention using total active motion, mean strength and QuickDASH scores. Measurements were conducted by independent clinicians with patients wearing gloves to blind the assessor to signs of intervention.\nResults: Of 38 patients identified for inclusion in the study, 15 underwent operative fixation and 23 underwent traction. There were no significant differences found between the two groups for all outcome measures. The mean total active motion, mean strength and QuickDASH scores for the traction and operative groups were 90.8 per cent versus 90.7 per cent (P = 0.97), 84 per cent versus 79 per cent (P = 0.58) and 1.48 versus 2.5 (P = 0.54), respectively. \nConclusions: We found no clinically or statistically significant difference between EAVAST protocol and operative management of proximal phalanx fractures. Future study is now warranted, ideally a multi-centre prospective randomised controlled trial with blinded assessment of outcomes in-cluding a cost–benefit analysis comparing standardised operative and traction techniques.","PeriodicalId":264055,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Traction splinting (EAVAST protocol) versus operative fixation of proximal phalanx fractures: a comparative study of patient outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Al Hopkins, Nicky Barry, S. Bowman, S. Sathasivam, Rohit Kumar, A. Preketes, M. Dowd\",\"doi\":\"10.34239/ajops.v5n1.265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Phalangeal fractures are common, frequently deformed and unstable, and are regularly managed operatively. However, closed methods of reduction are increasing. This study aimed to compare functional outcomes for a non-operative cohort using a skin traction method developed by the Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, termed ‘early active vector adjustable skin traction’ or EAVAST, compared to operatively managed patients as a potential alternative for the management proximal phalanx fractures.\\nMethods: A prospective cohort study of patients who underwent operative fixation or traction using the EAVAST protocol between January 2018 and January 2020. Patients were managed on a case-by-case basis by fracture type and mechanism of injury. Functional outcomes were assessed at three months post intervention using total active motion, mean strength and QuickDASH scores. Measurements were conducted by independent clinicians with patients wearing gloves to blind the assessor to signs of intervention.\\nResults: Of 38 patients identified for inclusion in the study, 15 underwent operative fixation and 23 underwent traction. There were no significant differences found between the two groups for all outcome measures. The mean total active motion, mean strength and QuickDASH scores for the traction and operative groups were 90.8 per cent versus 90.7 per cent (P = 0.97), 84 per cent versus 79 per cent (P = 0.58) and 1.48 versus 2.5 (P = 0.54), respectively. \\nConclusions: We found no clinically or statistically significant difference between EAVAST protocol and operative management of proximal phalanx fractures. Future study is now warranted, ideally a multi-centre prospective randomised controlled trial with blinded assessment of outcomes in-cluding a cost–benefit analysis comparing standardised operative and traction techniques.\",\"PeriodicalId\":264055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34239/ajops.v5n1.265\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34239/ajops.v5n1.265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

指骨骨折是常见的,经常变形和不稳定,并定期处理手术。然而,封闭的还原方法正在增加。本研究旨在比较非手术队列中使用由澳大利亚悉尼Nepean医院开发的皮肤牵引方法(称为“早期主动矢量可调节皮肤牵引”或EAVAST)的功能结果,将其与手术治疗的患者作为治疗近端指骨骨折的潜在替代方法进行比较。方法:对2018年1月至2020年1月期间使用EAVAST方案进行手术固定或牵引的患者进行前瞻性队列研究。根据骨折类型和损伤机制对患者进行个案治疗。在干预后三个月,使用总主动运动、平均力量和QuickDASH评分评估功能结果。测量由独立的临床医生进行,患者戴着手套,使评估员对干预的迹象视而不见。结果:确定纳入研究的38例患者中,15例接受手术固定,23例接受牵引。两组在所有结果指标上均无显著差异。牵引组和手术组的平均总主动活动量、平均力量和QuickDASH评分分别为90.8%比90.7% (P = 0.97)、84%比79% (P = 0.58)和1.48比2.5 (P = 0.54)。结论:我们发现在近端指骨骨折的EAVAST治疗方案和手术治疗之间没有临床或统计学上的差异。未来的研究是有必要的,最好是一个多中心前瞻性随机对照试验,对结果进行盲法评估,包括比较标准化手术和牵引技术的成本效益分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Traction splinting (EAVAST protocol) versus operative fixation of proximal phalanx fractures: a comparative study of patient outcomes
Introduction: Phalangeal fractures are common, frequently deformed and unstable, and are regularly managed operatively. However, closed methods of reduction are increasing. This study aimed to compare functional outcomes for a non-operative cohort using a skin traction method developed by the Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia, termed ‘early active vector adjustable skin traction’ or EAVAST, compared to operatively managed patients as a potential alternative for the management proximal phalanx fractures. Methods: A prospective cohort study of patients who underwent operative fixation or traction using the EAVAST protocol between January 2018 and January 2020. Patients were managed on a case-by-case basis by fracture type and mechanism of injury. Functional outcomes were assessed at three months post intervention using total active motion, mean strength and QuickDASH scores. Measurements were conducted by independent clinicians with patients wearing gloves to blind the assessor to signs of intervention. Results: Of 38 patients identified for inclusion in the study, 15 underwent operative fixation and 23 underwent traction. There were no significant differences found between the two groups for all outcome measures. The mean total active motion, mean strength and QuickDASH scores for the traction and operative groups were 90.8 per cent versus 90.7 per cent (P = 0.97), 84 per cent versus 79 per cent (P = 0.58) and 1.48 versus 2.5 (P = 0.54), respectively. Conclusions: We found no clinically or statistically significant difference between EAVAST protocol and operative management of proximal phalanx fractures. Future study is now warranted, ideally a multi-centre prospective randomised controlled trial with blinded assessment of outcomes in-cluding a cost–benefit analysis comparing standardised operative and traction techniques.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信