治疗乒乓球头骨骨折的新设备:锤式牵引器技术。使用真实模拟模型进行比较分析。

Surgical neurology international Pub Date : 2024-05-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.25259/SNI_141_2024
Carlos Dos Reis Lisboa Neto, Giselle Coelho, Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo
{"title":"治疗乒乓球头骨骨折的新设备:锤式牵引器技术。使用真实模拟模型进行比较分析。","authors":"Carlos Dos Reis Lisboa Neto, Giselle Coelho, Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo","doi":"10.25259/SNI_141_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to describe a new surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong skull fractures and to evaluate its efficacy in a realistic simulation model compared to the dissector elevation technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 64 fractures were obtained using 16 model units, each with four fractures (two frontal and two parietal). The hammer puller technique was applied for left-sided fractures and the dissector technique for right-sided fractures. The variables evaluated were fracture repair time, fracture volume, fracture corrected volume, and fracture correction percentage. Fractures were separated into groups according to the surgical technique used (hammer or dissector) and the bone fractured (frontal or parietal). Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi® software (version 2.3) using Student's <i>t</i>-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A complete degree of fracture correction was achieved with both techniques, demonstrating a sufficient performance in the correction of the deformity. The hammer technique was shown to be faster in correcting frontal bone depressions with 20.1 ± 7.8 s compared to 31.3 ± 4.7 s for the dissector technique, <i>P</i> < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference for parietal applications (<i>P =</i> 0.405).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study describes a new minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong fractures. Comparative analysis showed that both techniques were equally effective but that the hammer puller technique was more efficient than the dissector elevation technique, especially for frontal bone fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11152529/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new device to treat ping-pong skull fractures: The hammer puller technique. A comparative analysis using a realistic simulation model.\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Dos Reis Lisboa Neto, Giselle Coelho, Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/SNI_141_2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to describe a new surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong skull fractures and to evaluate its efficacy in a realistic simulation model compared to the dissector elevation technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 64 fractures were obtained using 16 model units, each with four fractures (two frontal and two parietal). The hammer puller technique was applied for left-sided fractures and the dissector technique for right-sided fractures. The variables evaluated were fracture repair time, fracture volume, fracture corrected volume, and fracture correction percentage. Fractures were separated into groups according to the surgical technique used (hammer or dissector) and the bone fractured (frontal or parietal). Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi® software (version 2.3) using Student's <i>t</i>-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A complete degree of fracture correction was achieved with both techniques, demonstrating a sufficient performance in the correction of the deformity. The hammer technique was shown to be faster in correcting frontal bone depressions with 20.1 ± 7.8 s compared to 31.3 ± 4.7 s for the dissector technique, <i>P</i> < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference for parietal applications (<i>P =</i> 0.405).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study describes a new minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong fractures. Comparative analysis showed that both techniques were equally effective but that the hammer puller technique was more efficient than the dissector elevation technique, especially for frontal bone fractures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical neurology international\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11152529/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical neurology international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_141_2024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_141_2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景本研究旨在描述一种治疗乒乓球颅骨骨折的新手术技术,并在一个逼真的模拟模型中评估其与剥离器抬高技术相比的疗效:方法:使用 16 个模型单元共获得 64 处骨折,每个单元有四处骨折(两处额骨和两处顶骨)。左侧骨折采用锤式牵引器技术,右侧骨折采用剥离器技术。评估的变量包括骨折修复时间、骨折量、骨折矫正量和骨折矫正百分比。根据使用的手术技术(锤击或剥离)和骨折的骨头(额骨或顶骨)将骨折分为不同的组别。统计分析使用 Jamovi® 软件(2.3 版)进行,采用学生 t 检验:结果:两种技术都实现了完全程度的骨折矫正,显示了矫正畸形的充分性能。锤击技术在矫正额骨凹陷方面速度更快(20.1 ± 7.8 秒),而剥离器技术为 31.3 ± 4.7 秒(P < 0.001)。顶骨应用的差异无统计学意义(P = 0.405):本研究描述了一种治疗乒乓球骨折的新型微创手术技术。对比分析表明,两种技术同样有效,但锤拉技术比剥离器抬高技术更有效,尤其是在额骨骨折方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A new device to treat ping-pong skull fractures: The hammer puller technique. A comparative analysis using a realistic simulation model.

Background: This study aims to describe a new surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong skull fractures and to evaluate its efficacy in a realistic simulation model compared to the dissector elevation technique.

Methods: A total of 64 fractures were obtained using 16 model units, each with four fractures (two frontal and two parietal). The hammer puller technique was applied for left-sided fractures and the dissector technique for right-sided fractures. The variables evaluated were fracture repair time, fracture volume, fracture corrected volume, and fracture correction percentage. Fractures were separated into groups according to the surgical technique used (hammer or dissector) and the bone fractured (frontal or parietal). Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi® software (version 2.3) using Student's t-test.

Results: A complete degree of fracture correction was achieved with both techniques, demonstrating a sufficient performance in the correction of the deformity. The hammer technique was shown to be faster in correcting frontal bone depressions with 20.1 ± 7.8 s compared to 31.3 ± 4.7 s for the dissector technique, P < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference for parietal applications (P = 0.405).

Conclusion: This study describes a new minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of ping-pong fractures. Comparative analysis showed that both techniques were equally effective but that the hammer puller technique was more efficient than the dissector elevation technique, especially for frontal bone fractures.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信