逆行髓内钉与外侧锁定钢板内固定治疗股骨远端骨折:哪种技术更好?

IF 2.1 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-06-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.140710
İsmail Güzel, Tarık Altunkılıç, Bünyamin Arı, Mehmet Boz
{"title":"逆行髓内钉与外侧锁定钢板内固定治疗股骨远端骨折:哪种技术更好?","authors":"İsmail Güzel, Tarık Altunkılıç, Bünyamin Arı, Mehmet Boz","doi":"10.52965/001c.140710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Distal femur fractures are challenging to treat, especially in elderly osteoporotic patients. Retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN) and lateral locking plate (LP) fixation are commonly used surgical methods for these fractures. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of these two techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, a total of 72 patients with distal femur fractures classified according to the AO/OTA system and treated surgically were included. Patients were divided into two groups: RIMN (n=36) and LP (n=36). Demographic data, fracture classification, surgical method, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, early weight-bearing status, knee range of motion, union time, and complication rates were evaluated. Additionally, union rate, infection, implant failure, and reoperation requirement were compared. A power analysis was conducted assuming 70% power to detect a clinically significant difference. Statistical analyses included T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess union time. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The union rate was 86.1% in the RIMN group and 75.0% in the LP group. The average union time was 15.4 weeks for RIMN and 17.2 weeks for LP. Knee range of motion was significantly better in the RIMN group (115.2° vs. 110.4°, p=0.03). Early weight-bearing was achieved in 61.1% of RIMN patients and 44.4% of LP patients (p=0.11). The overall complication rate was 16.7% in the RIMN group and 25.0% in the LP group. Infection rates were 5.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Implant failure was observed in 5.6% of patients in both groups. Reoperation was required in 8.3% of RIMN and 13.9% of LP patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that RIMN may offer advantages over LP in terms of higher union rates, shorter union time, and better functional outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. However, both techniques demonstrated acceptable complication rates, and treatment choice should be tailored to the fracture pattern and patient characteristics. Further prospective, randomized studies are needed to support these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Reviews","volume":"17 ","pages":"140710"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12351506/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing vs. Lateral Locking Plate Fixation for Distal Femur Fractures: Which Technique is Superior?\",\"authors\":\"İsmail Güzel, Tarık Altunkılıç, Bünyamin Arı, Mehmet Boz\",\"doi\":\"10.52965/001c.140710\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Distal femur fractures are challenging to treat, especially in elderly osteoporotic patients. Retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN) and lateral locking plate (LP) fixation are commonly used surgical methods for these fractures. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of these two techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, a total of 72 patients with distal femur fractures classified according to the AO/OTA system and treated surgically were included. Patients were divided into two groups: RIMN (n=36) and LP (n=36). Demographic data, fracture classification, surgical method, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, early weight-bearing status, knee range of motion, union time, and complication rates were evaluated. Additionally, union rate, infection, implant failure, and reoperation requirement were compared. A power analysis was conducted assuming 70% power to detect a clinically significant difference. Statistical analyses included T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess union time. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The union rate was 86.1% in the RIMN group and 75.0% in the LP group. The average union time was 15.4 weeks for RIMN and 17.2 weeks for LP. Knee range of motion was significantly better in the RIMN group (115.2° vs. 110.4°, p=0.03). Early weight-bearing was achieved in 61.1% of RIMN patients and 44.4% of LP patients (p=0.11). The overall complication rate was 16.7% in the RIMN group and 25.0% in the LP group. Infection rates were 5.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Implant failure was observed in 5.6% of patients in both groups. Reoperation was required in 8.3% of RIMN and 13.9% of LP patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that RIMN may offer advantages over LP in terms of higher union rates, shorter union time, and better functional outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. However, both techniques demonstrated acceptable complication rates, and treatment choice should be tailored to the fracture pattern and patient characteristics. Further prospective, randomized studies are needed to support these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopedic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"140710\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12351506/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopedic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.140710\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.140710","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:股骨远端骨折治疗具有挑战性,尤其是老年骨质疏松患者。逆行髓内钉(RIMN)和外侧锁定钢板(LP)固定是治疗此类骨折的常用手术方法。本研究旨在比较这两种技术的临床和放射学结果。方法:回顾性分析72例经AO/OTA系统分类并行手术治疗的股骨远端骨折患者。患者分为两组:RIMN组(n=36)和LP组(n=36)。评估人口统计学资料、骨折分类、手术方式、手术时间、术中出血量、早期负重状况、膝关节活动度、愈合时间和并发症发生率。此外,还比较了愈合率、感染、种植体失败和再手术需求。假设功率为70%,进行功率分析以检测临床显著性差异。统计分析包括t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验、卡方检验和Fisher精确检验。Kaplan-Meier分析评估愈合时间。结果:RIMN组愈合率为86.1%,LP组愈合率为75.0%。RIMN和LP的平均结合时间分别为15.4周和17.2周。RIMN组的膝关节活动范围明显更好(115.2°vs 110.4°,p=0.03)。61.1%的RIMN患者和44.4%的LP患者实现了早期负重(p=0.11)。RIMN组和LP组的总并发症发生率分别为16.7%和25.0%。感染率分别为5.6%和8.3%。两组均有5.6%的患者种植失败。8.3%的RIMN患者和13.9%的LP患者需要再手术。结论:我们的研究结果表明,与LP相比,RIMN在更高的愈合率、更短的愈合时间和更好的功能预后方面可能具有优势,特别是在骨质疏松患者中。然而,这两种技术的并发症发生率均可接受,治疗选择应根据骨折类型和患者特点而定。需要进一步的前瞻性随机研究来支持这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing vs. Lateral Locking Plate Fixation for Distal Femur Fractures: Which Technique is Superior?

Objective: Distal femur fractures are challenging to treat, especially in elderly osteoporotic patients. Retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN) and lateral locking plate (LP) fixation are commonly used surgical methods for these fractures. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of these two techniques.

Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 72 patients with distal femur fractures classified according to the AO/OTA system and treated surgically were included. Patients were divided into two groups: RIMN (n=36) and LP (n=36). Demographic data, fracture classification, surgical method, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, early weight-bearing status, knee range of motion, union time, and complication rates were evaluated. Additionally, union rate, infection, implant failure, and reoperation requirement were compared. A power analysis was conducted assuming 70% power to detect a clinically significant difference. Statistical analyses included T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess union time. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The union rate was 86.1% in the RIMN group and 75.0% in the LP group. The average union time was 15.4 weeks for RIMN and 17.2 weeks for LP. Knee range of motion was significantly better in the RIMN group (115.2° vs. 110.4°, p=0.03). Early weight-bearing was achieved in 61.1% of RIMN patients and 44.4% of LP patients (p=0.11). The overall complication rate was 16.7% in the RIMN group and 25.0% in the LP group. Infection rates were 5.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Implant failure was observed in 5.6% of patients in both groups. Reoperation was required in 8.3% of RIMN and 13.9% of LP patients.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that RIMN may offer advantages over LP in terms of higher union rates, shorter union time, and better functional outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. However, both techniques demonstrated acceptable complication rates, and treatment choice should be tailored to the fracture pattern and patient characteristics. Further prospective, randomized studies are needed to support these findings.

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
Orthopedic Reviews
Orthopedic Reviews ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
122
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Reviews is an Open Access, online-only, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles concerned with any aspect of orthopedics, as well as diagnosis and treatment, trauma, surgical procedures, arthroscopy, sports medicine, rehabilitation, pediatric and geriatric orthopedics. All bone-related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology papers are also welcome. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, reviews and case reports of general interest.
×
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