骨盆环损伤的结果

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Axel Gänsslen, Jan Lindahl, Dietmar Krappinger, Richard A. Lindtner, Mario Staresinic
{"title":"骨盆环损伤的结果","authors":"Axel Gänsslen,&nbsp;Jan Lindahl,&nbsp;Dietmar Krappinger,&nbsp;Richard A. Lindtner,&nbsp;Mario Staresinic","doi":"10.1007/s00402-024-05606-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Outcome evaluation is of major importance to provide data to analyze the value of the chosen treatment concept. Despite an increasing effort of analyzing outcome after treatment of different pelvic ring injuries, a mixture of different outcome parameters is in use. The Majeed score is most frequently used for mid- to long-term evaluation and the quality of life is analyzed using the SF-36 score. The lack in nearly all studies is that different treatment concepts are used, and only selected evaluation parameters are reported. Until today, no well-accepted standardized measurement instruments are available to analyze the clinical and radiological results after pelvic ring injuries. Overall, stability-based long-term sequelae can be expected with increasing complaints from stable type A injuries to completely unstable type C injuries. Beside a fracture-type specific treatment, concomitant injuries of other injury regions and associated local pelvic injuries (complex pelvic trauma) seem to additionally influence the results. Results of treatment of specific fracture types are sparse as a wide range of different injury types and different treatment concepts are analyzed within these analyses. A sufficient pelvic outcome instrument which addresses relevant pelvic outcome parameters is still missing. Thus, future evaluation of long-term results after pelvic ring. injuries should include prospective, multicenter outcome studies with comparable parameters.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00402-024-05606-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome of pelvic ring injuries\",\"authors\":\"Axel Gänsslen,&nbsp;Jan Lindahl,&nbsp;Dietmar Krappinger,&nbsp;Richard A. Lindtner,&nbsp;Mario Staresinic\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00402-024-05606-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Outcome evaluation is of major importance to provide data to analyze the value of the chosen treatment concept. Despite an increasing effort of analyzing outcome after treatment of different pelvic ring injuries, a mixture of different outcome parameters is in use. The Majeed score is most frequently used for mid- to long-term evaluation and the quality of life is analyzed using the SF-36 score. The lack in nearly all studies is that different treatment concepts are used, and only selected evaluation parameters are reported. Until today, no well-accepted standardized measurement instruments are available to analyze the clinical and radiological results after pelvic ring injuries. Overall, stability-based long-term sequelae can be expected with increasing complaints from stable type A injuries to completely unstable type C injuries. Beside a fracture-type specific treatment, concomitant injuries of other injury regions and associated local pelvic injuries (complex pelvic trauma) seem to additionally influence the results. Results of treatment of specific fracture types are sparse as a wide range of different injury types and different treatment concepts are analyzed within these analyses. A sufficient pelvic outcome instrument which addresses relevant pelvic outcome parameters is still missing. Thus, future evaluation of long-term results after pelvic ring. injuries should include prospective, multicenter outcome studies with comparable parameters.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery\",\"volume\":\"145 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00402-024-05606-w.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05606-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05606-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

结果评价对于提供数据分析所选治疗概念的价值具有重要意义。尽管分析不同骨盆环损伤治疗后的结果的努力越来越多,但混合使用了不同的结果参数。马吉德评分最常用于中长期评估,生活质量分析使用SF-36评分。几乎所有研究的不足之处在于使用了不同的治疗概念,并且只报告了选定的评估参数。直到今天,还没有公认的标准化测量仪器可用于分析骨盆环损伤后的临床和放射学结果。总的来说,稳定性为基础的长期后遗症是可以预期的,从稳定的A型损伤到完全不稳定的C型损伤的投诉越来越多。除了骨折类型的特异性治疗外,其他损伤区域的伴随损伤和相关的局部盆腔损伤(复杂盆腔创伤)似乎也会影响结果。具体骨折类型的治疗结果很少,因为这些分析中分析了不同的损伤类型和不同的治疗理念。目前仍缺乏一种足够的骨盆预后仪器来解决相关的骨盆预后参数。因此,未来评估盆腔环术后的长期效果。损伤应包括具有可比参数的前瞻性、多中心结果研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcome of pelvic ring injuries

Outcome evaluation is of major importance to provide data to analyze the value of the chosen treatment concept. Despite an increasing effort of analyzing outcome after treatment of different pelvic ring injuries, a mixture of different outcome parameters is in use. The Majeed score is most frequently used for mid- to long-term evaluation and the quality of life is analyzed using the SF-36 score. The lack in nearly all studies is that different treatment concepts are used, and only selected evaluation parameters are reported. Until today, no well-accepted standardized measurement instruments are available to analyze the clinical and radiological results after pelvic ring injuries. Overall, stability-based long-term sequelae can be expected with increasing complaints from stable type A injuries to completely unstable type C injuries. Beside a fracture-type specific treatment, concomitant injuries of other injury regions and associated local pelvic injuries (complex pelvic trauma) seem to additionally influence the results. Results of treatment of specific fracture types are sparse as a wide range of different injury types and different treatment concepts are analyzed within these analyses. A sufficient pelvic outcome instrument which addresses relevant pelvic outcome parameters is still missing. Thus, future evaluation of long-term results after pelvic ring. injuries should include prospective, multicenter outcome studies with comparable parameters.

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
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
×
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
小红书