Mahmoud Elsayed Ali Abdelrazek, Mohammed Osama Hegazy, A. Zakaria
{"title":"经皮固定与切开复位内固定治疗内侧踝骨骨折","authors":"Mahmoud Elsayed Ali Abdelrazek, Mohammed Osama Hegazy, A. Zakaria","doi":"10.1097/bco.0000000000001264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Medial malleolus fractures are common orthopedic injuries that require prompt and effective treatment. This study aimed to compare two treatment approaches, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF), for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults.\n \n \n \n This randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with isolated medial malleolus fracture who were assigned to either the ORIF or CRPF group using a simple randomization method. Surgical procedures were performed as described in the study, and post-operative management included splinting and regular clinical assessments.\n \n \n \n Intraoperatively, CRPF demonstrated significantly lower operative time (33±5 min vs. 50±11 min, P < 0.001) but higher X-ray exposure (33±9 vs. 25±7, P=0.014) compared to ORIF. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of delayed union, pain with movement, soft tissue infection, or time to full union.\n \n \n \n Both ORIF and CRPF are viable treatment options for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. CRPF offers advantages in terms of shorter operative time but requires increased fluoroscopy usage.\n \n \n \n Level IV.\n","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of medial malleolus fracture\",\"authors\":\"Mahmoud Elsayed Ali Abdelrazek, Mohammed Osama Hegazy, A. Zakaria\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/bco.0000000000001264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Medial malleolus fractures are common orthopedic injuries that require prompt and effective treatment. This study aimed to compare two treatment approaches, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF), for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults.\\n \\n \\n \\n This randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with isolated medial malleolus fracture who were assigned to either the ORIF or CRPF group using a simple randomization method. Surgical procedures were performed as described in the study, and post-operative management included splinting and regular clinical assessments.\\n \\n \\n \\n Intraoperatively, CRPF demonstrated significantly lower operative time (33±5 min vs. 50±11 min, P < 0.001) but higher X-ray exposure (33±9 vs. 25±7, P=0.014) compared to ORIF. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of delayed union, pain with movement, soft tissue infection, or time to full union.\\n \\n \\n \\n Both ORIF and CRPF are viable treatment options for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. CRPF offers advantages in terms of shorter operative time but requires increased fluoroscopy usage.\\n \\n \\n \\n Level IV.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":10732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/bco.0000000000001264\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/bco.0000000000001264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
内侧踝骨骨折是常见的骨科损伤,需要及时有效的治疗。本研究旨在比较成人孤立性踝关节内侧骨折的两种治疗方法,即开放复位内固定术(ORIF)和闭合复位经皮固定术(CRPF)。 这项随机对照试验纳入了 30 名孤立性踝关节内侧骨折患者,采用简单的随机方法将他们分配到 ORIF 组或 CRPF 组。手术方法如研究中所述,术后管理包括夹板固定和定期临床评估。 术中,CRPF与ORIF相比,手术时间明显缩短(33±5分钟 vs. 50±11分钟,P<0.001),但X光暴露更高(33±9 vs. 25±7,P=0.014)。术后,两组在延迟愈合、活动疼痛、软组织感染或完全愈合时间方面无明显差异。 对于成人孤立性内踝骨折,ORIF 和 CRPF 都是可行的治疗方案。CRPF 在缩短手术时间方面具有优势,但需要增加透视的使用。 四级。
Percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of medial malleolus fracture
Medial malleolus fractures are common orthopedic injuries that require prompt and effective treatment. This study aimed to compare two treatment approaches, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF), for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults.
This randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with isolated medial malleolus fracture who were assigned to either the ORIF or CRPF group using a simple randomization method. Surgical procedures were performed as described in the study, and post-operative management included splinting and regular clinical assessments.
Intraoperatively, CRPF demonstrated significantly lower operative time (33±5 min vs. 50±11 min, P < 0.001) but higher X-ray exposure (33±9 vs. 25±7, P=0.014) compared to ORIF. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of delayed union, pain with movement, soft tissue infection, or time to full union.
Both ORIF and CRPF are viable treatment options for isolated medial malleolus fractures in adults. CRPF offers advantages in terms of shorter operative time but requires increased fluoroscopy usage.
Level IV.
期刊介绍:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.