使用生物整合螺钉固定 Lisfranc 失稳;从外科医生的角度看尸体研究中的利弊。

IF 1.2 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Vasundhara Mathur, David Osei-Hwedieh, Sayyed Hadi Sayyed Hosseinian, Lorena Bejarano-Pineda, Philip Kaiser, Fernando Raduan, John Y Kwon, Soheil Ashkani-Esfahani, Gregory R Waryasz
{"title":"使用生物整合螺钉固定 Lisfranc 失稳;从外科医生的角度看尸体研究中的利弊。","authors":"Vasundhara Mathur, David Osei-Hwedieh, Sayyed Hadi Sayyed Hosseinian, Lorena Bejarano-Pineda, Philip Kaiser, Fernando Raduan, John Y Kwon, Soheil Ashkani-Esfahani, Gregory R Waryasz","doi":"10.22038/ABJS.2023.73584.3410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Majority of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations require anatomic reduction and rigid internal fixation to prevent debilitating sequelae. Current methods include solid screws and flexible fixations which have been in use for many years. Biointegrative screw is a newer option that has not yet been thoroughly investigated for its effectiveness for Lisfranc injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ligaments of the Lisfranc complex were resected in eight lower-leg cadaveric specimens. This was done by eight foot and ankle surgeons individually. Distraction forces were applied from opposite sides at the joint to replicate weight bearing conditions. Three methods of fixation - flexible fixation, metal, and biointegrative screws- were evaluated. The diastasis and area at the level of the ligament were measured at four conditions (replicated injury and each type of fixation) in neutral and distraction conditions using fluoroscopy images. The Wilcoxon test and Kruskal Wallis test were used for comparison. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diastasis value for the transected ligament scenario (2.47 ± 0.51 mm) was greater than those after all three fixation methods without distraction (2.02 ± 0.5 for flexible fixation, 1.72 ± 0.63 mm for metal screw fixation and 1.67 ± 0.77 mm for biointegrative screw fixation). The transected ligament diastasis was also greater than that for metal screw (1.61 ± 1.31mm) and biointegrative screws (1.69 ± 0.64 mm) with distraction (p<0.001). The area at the level of the ligament showed higher values for transected ligament (32.7 ± 13.08 mm2) than the three fixatives (30.75 ± 7.42 mm2 for flexible fixation, 30.75 ± 17.13 mm2 for metal screw fixation and 29.53 ± 9.15 mm2 for biointegrative screw fixation; p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Metal screws, flexible fixation and biointegrative screws showed comparable effectiveness intra-op, in the correction of diastasis created as a consequence of Lisfranc injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":46704,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838575/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of Bio-integrative Screws for Fixation of Lisfranc Instability; Pros and Cons from Surgeons' Point of View in a Cadaver Study.\",\"authors\":\"Vasundhara Mathur, David Osei-Hwedieh, Sayyed Hadi Sayyed Hosseinian, Lorena Bejarano-Pineda, Philip Kaiser, Fernando Raduan, John Y Kwon, Soheil Ashkani-Esfahani, Gregory R Waryasz\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/ABJS.2023.73584.3410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Majority of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations require anatomic reduction and rigid internal fixation to prevent debilitating sequelae. Current methods include solid screws and flexible fixations which have been in use for many years. Biointegrative screw is a newer option that has not yet been thoroughly investigated for its effectiveness for Lisfranc injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ligaments of the Lisfranc complex were resected in eight lower-leg cadaveric specimens. This was done by eight foot and ankle surgeons individually. Distraction forces were applied from opposite sides at the joint to replicate weight bearing conditions. Three methods of fixation - flexible fixation, metal, and biointegrative screws- were evaluated. The diastasis and area at the level of the ligament were measured at four conditions (replicated injury and each type of fixation) in neutral and distraction conditions using fluoroscopy images. The Wilcoxon test and Kruskal Wallis test were used for comparison. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diastasis value for the transected ligament scenario (2.47 ± 0.51 mm) was greater than those after all three fixation methods without distraction (2.02 ± 0.5 for flexible fixation, 1.72 ± 0.63 mm for metal screw fixation and 1.67 ± 0.77 mm for biointegrative screw fixation). The transected ligament diastasis was also greater than that for metal screw (1.61 ± 1.31mm) and biointegrative screws (1.69 ± 0.64 mm) with distraction (p<0.001). The area at the level of the ligament showed higher values for transected ligament (32.7 ± 13.08 mm2) than the three fixatives (30.75 ± 7.42 mm2 for flexible fixation, 30.75 ± 17.13 mm2 for metal screw fixation and 29.53 ± 9.15 mm2 for biointegrative screw fixation; p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Metal screws, flexible fixation and biointegrative screws showed comparable effectiveness intra-op, in the correction of diastasis created as a consequence of Lisfranc injury.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838575/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2023.73584.3410\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2023.73584.3410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:大多数 Lisfranc 骨折-脱位需要解剖复位和硬性内固定,以防止造成衰弱的后遗症。目前的方法包括已使用多年的实心螺钉和柔性固定。生物整合螺钉是一种较新的选择,但尚未对其对 Lisfranc 损伤的有效性进行彻底研究:方法:在 8 个下肢尸体标本中切除了 Lisfranc 复合韧带。这是由八名足踝外科医生分别完成的。从关节两侧施加牵引力,以模拟负重条件。对三种固定方法--柔性固定、金属固定和生物整合螺钉--进行了评估。利用透视图像测量了中性和牵张条件下四种情况(重复损伤和每种固定方式)下韧带水平的舒张和面积。比较采用 Wilcoxon 检验和 Kruskal Wallis 检验。P 值 结果:韧带横断情况下的舒张值(2.47 ± 0.51 mm)大于三种无牵拉固定方法后的舒张值(柔性固定为 2.02 ± 0.5,金属螺钉固定为 1.72 ± 0.63 mm,生物整合螺钉固定为 1.67 ± 0.77 mm)。金属螺钉(1.61 ± 1.31 毫米)和生物整合螺钉(1.69 ± 0.64 毫米)的韧带横切舒张量也大于牵引的韧带横切舒张量(p 结论:金属螺钉、柔性固定和生物整合螺钉的韧带横切舒张量均大于牵引的韧带横切舒张量:金属螺钉、柔性固定和生物整合螺钉在术中矫正因Lisfranc损伤造成的韧带松弛方面效果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of Bio-integrative Screws for Fixation of Lisfranc Instability; Pros and Cons from Surgeons' Point of View in a Cadaver Study.

Objectives: Majority of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations require anatomic reduction and rigid internal fixation to prevent debilitating sequelae. Current methods include solid screws and flexible fixations which have been in use for many years. Biointegrative screw is a newer option that has not yet been thoroughly investigated for its effectiveness for Lisfranc injuries.

Methods: The ligaments of the Lisfranc complex were resected in eight lower-leg cadaveric specimens. This was done by eight foot and ankle surgeons individually. Distraction forces were applied from opposite sides at the joint to replicate weight bearing conditions. Three methods of fixation - flexible fixation, metal, and biointegrative screws- were evaluated. The diastasis and area at the level of the ligament were measured at four conditions (replicated injury and each type of fixation) in neutral and distraction conditions using fluoroscopy images. The Wilcoxon test and Kruskal Wallis test were used for comparison. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The diastasis value for the transected ligament scenario (2.47 ± 0.51 mm) was greater than those after all three fixation methods without distraction (2.02 ± 0.5 for flexible fixation, 1.72 ± 0.63 mm for metal screw fixation and 1.67 ± 0.77 mm for biointegrative screw fixation). The transected ligament diastasis was also greater than that for metal screw (1.61 ± 1.31mm) and biointegrative screws (1.69 ± 0.64 mm) with distraction (p<0.001). The area at the level of the ligament showed higher values for transected ligament (32.7 ± 13.08 mm2) than the three fixatives (30.75 ± 7.42 mm2 for flexible fixation, 30.75 ± 17.13 mm2 for metal screw fixation and 29.53 ± 9.15 mm2 for biointegrative screw fixation; p<0.05).

Conclusion: Metal screws, flexible fixation and biointegrative screws showed comparable effectiveness intra-op, in the correction of diastasis created as a consequence of Lisfranc injury.

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
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) aims to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of Orthopedic Sciences. The journal accepts scientific papers including original research, review article, short communication, case report, and letter to the editor in all fields of bone, joint, musculoskeletal surgery and related researches. The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) will publish papers in all aspects of today`s modern orthopedic sciences including: Arthroscopy, Arthroplasty, Sport Medicine, Reconstruction, Hand and Upper Extremity, Pediatric Orthopedics, Spine, Trauma, Foot and Ankle, Tumor, Joint Rheumatic Disease, Skeletal Imaging, Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Basic Sciences (Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomaterial..).
×
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