后枕骨骨折伴骨间碎片的复位和预后:一项比较经腓骨入路和后内侧入路的回顾性队列研究。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Li Ying, Can Yao, Bin Wang, Junbo Liang, Guofu Chen
{"title":"后枕骨骨折伴骨间碎片的复位和预后:一项比较经腓骨入路和后内侧入路的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Li Ying, Can Yao, Bin Wang, Junbo Liang, Guofu Chen","doi":"10.1186/s10195-025-00851-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The transfibular fracture region (TFFR) approach can be utilized for managing posterior pilon fractures associated with intercalary fragments. However, its long-term outcomes remain unreported. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of the TFFR approach and the posteromedial approach for posterior pilon fractures (Klammer type 2/3, Danis-Weber type B) associated with displaced intercalary fragments over an average 8 year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>From 2012 to 2018, a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery via either the TFFR approach or the posteromedial approach for posterior pilon fracture associated with intercalary fragments were enrolled for this study. Clinical outcomes were evaluated over an average 8 year (range 5-12 years) follow-up. The surgical duration, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, and postoperative complications were recorded. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) score at last follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine patients were included in the final analysis, including 43 in the TFFR group and 36 in the posteromedial group. No significant differences between the two groups were observed in the FAOS (p = 0.679) or its specific components for symptoms (p = 0.264), pain (p = 0.963), activities of daily living (ADL, p = 0.102), sports (p = 0.156), or quality of life (p = 0.859). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in the FAAM-ADL (p = 0.408), FAAM-Sport (p = 0.617), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.757). Nevertheless, the surgical duration was shorter in the TFFR group (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TFFR approach is not inferior to the posteromedial approach. For posterior pilon fractures with lateral malleolar fractures in the same plane, the TFFR approach may be preferred owing to its potential to reduce surgical time and the use of a single incision. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.</p>","PeriodicalId":48603,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology","volume":"26 1","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reduction and outcome of posterior pilon fractures with intercalary fragments: a retrospective cohort study comparing the transfibular and posteromedial approaches.\",\"authors\":\"Li Ying, Can Yao, Bin Wang, Junbo Liang, Guofu Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s10195-025-00851-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The transfibular fracture region (TFFR) approach can be utilized for managing posterior pilon fractures associated with intercalary fragments. However, its long-term outcomes remain unreported. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of the TFFR approach and the posteromedial approach for posterior pilon fractures (Klammer type 2/3, Danis-Weber type B) associated with displaced intercalary fragments over an average 8 year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>From 2012 to 2018, a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery via either the TFFR approach or the posteromedial approach for posterior pilon fracture associated with intercalary fragments were enrolled for this study. Clinical outcomes were evaluated over an average 8 year (range 5-12 years) follow-up. The surgical duration, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, and postoperative complications were recorded. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) score at last follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine patients were included in the final analysis, including 43 in the TFFR group and 36 in the posteromedial group. No significant differences between the two groups were observed in the FAOS (p = 0.679) or its specific components for symptoms (p = 0.264), pain (p = 0.963), activities of daily living (ADL, p = 0.102), sports (p = 0.156), or quality of life (p = 0.859). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in the FAAM-ADL (p = 0.408), FAAM-Sport (p = 0.617), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.757). Nevertheless, the surgical duration was shorter in the TFFR group (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TFFR approach is not inferior to the posteromedial approach. For posterior pilon fractures with lateral malleolar fractures in the same plane, the TFFR approach may be preferred owing to its potential to reduce surgical time and the use of a single incision. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48603,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-025-00851-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-025-00851-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:经腓骨骨折区(TFFR)入路可用于治疗伴有骨间碎片的后pilon骨折。然而,其长期结果仍未报告。本研究旨在比较TFFR入路和后内侧入路治疗伴有移位的鞍后骨折(Klammer 2/3型,Danis-Weber B型)的长期临床结果,平均随访8年。方法:从2012年到2018年,连续入组通过TFFR入路或后内侧入路接受切开复位内固定手术治疗后皮隆骨折伴鞍间碎片的患者。临床结果评估平均8年(范围5-12年)的随访。记录手术时间、术中透视次数及术后并发症。在最后随访时,使用足踝结局评分(FAOS)、足踝能力测量(FAAM)和短表36 (SF-36)评分评估功能结局。结果:最终纳入79例患者,其中TFFR组43例,后内侧组36例。两组患者在FAOS评分(p = 0.679)或其症状(p = 0.264)、疼痛(p = 0.963)、日常生活活动(ADL, p = 0.102)、运动(p = 0.156)或生活质量(p = 0.859)方面均无显著差异。两组间FAAM-ADL评分(p = 0.408)、FAAM-Sport评分(p = 0.617)、SF-36评分(p = 0.757)也无显著差异。然而,TFFR组的手术时间较短(p)。结论:TFFR入路并不逊色于后内侧入路。对于后pilon骨折合并外踝骨折在同一平面,TFFR入路可能是首选,因为它有可能减少手术时间和使用单一切口。证据水平III级,回顾性队列研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reduction and outcome of posterior pilon fractures with intercalary fragments: a retrospective cohort study comparing the transfibular and posteromedial approaches.

Background: The transfibular fracture region (TFFR) approach can be utilized for managing posterior pilon fractures associated with intercalary fragments. However, its long-term outcomes remain unreported. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of the TFFR approach and the posteromedial approach for posterior pilon fractures (Klammer type 2/3, Danis-Weber type B) associated with displaced intercalary fragments over an average 8 year follow-up.

Method: From 2012 to 2018, a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery via either the TFFR approach or the posteromedial approach for posterior pilon fracture associated with intercalary fragments were enrolled for this study. Clinical outcomes were evaluated over an average 8 year (range 5-12 years) follow-up. The surgical duration, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, and postoperative complications were recorded. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) score at last follow-up.

Results: Seventy-nine patients were included in the final analysis, including 43 in the TFFR group and 36 in the posteromedial group. No significant differences between the two groups were observed in the FAOS (p = 0.679) or its specific components for symptoms (p = 0.264), pain (p = 0.963), activities of daily living (ADL, p = 0.102), sports (p = 0.156), or quality of life (p = 0.859). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in the FAAM-ADL (p = 0.408), FAAM-Sport (p = 0.617), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.757). Nevertheless, the surgical duration was shorter in the TFFR group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The TFFR approach is not inferior to the posteromedial approach. For posterior pilon fractures with lateral malleolar fractures in the same plane, the TFFR approach may be preferred owing to its potential to reduce surgical time and the use of a single incision. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, the official open access peer-reviewed journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, publishes original papers reporting basic or clinical research in the field of orthopaedic and traumatologic surgery, as well as systematic reviews, brief communications, case reports and letters to the Editor. Narrative instructional reviews and commentaries to original articles may be commissioned by Editors from eminent colleagues. The Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology aims to be an international forum for the communication and exchange of ideas concerning the various aspects of orthopaedics and musculoskeletal trauma.
×
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