III级骨干开放性胫骨骨折的结果和深部骨感染的发生率:圆形固定器与髓内钉。

IF 1 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Ibrahim Natalwala, Cher Bing Chuo, Isla Shariatmadari, Gavin Barlow, Elizabeth Moulder, Joanna Bates, Hemant Sharma
{"title":"III级骨干开放性胫骨骨折的结果和深部骨感染的发生率:圆形固定器与髓内钉。","authors":"Ibrahim Natalwala,&nbsp;Cher Bing Chuo,&nbsp;Isla Shariatmadari,&nbsp;Gavin Barlow,&nbsp;Elizabeth Moulder,&nbsp;Joanna Bates,&nbsp;Hemant Sharma","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>High-energy grade III open fractures of tibia are associated with significant complications and generate debate over the ideal fixation method. This study compares the clinical outcomes for circular frame fixation (CFF) vs intramedullary nail fixation (IMF) in grade III open tibial fractures.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Single-centre retrospective study of patients admitted from January 2008 to December 2016. All patients with grade III open diaphyseal tibial fractures (AO 42 A, B, C), treated with either CFF or IMF, were included. The primary outcome was deep bone infection (DBI). Secondary outcomes were delayed or non-union, secondary intervention, and amputation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 limbs in 47 patients had CFF, and 25 limbs in 23 patients had IMF. Median time to definitive fixation was significantly longer for CFF at 9 days (IQR 3-13) compared to IMF at 1 day (IQR 0-3.5) (<i>p</i> <0.001). The DBI rate was significantly lower (2 vs 16%) in the CFF group (<i>p</i> = 0.04). There were 14 limbs (29%) with delayed or non-union in the CFF group vs 5 limbs (20%) in the IMF group. In the CFF group, significantly more limbs required bone grafting for delayed or non-union (<i>p</i> = 0.03). However, there was a greater proportion of limbs in the CFF group with segmental fractures or bone loss (46 vs 4%) and these high-energy fracture patterns were associated with secondary bone grafting (<i>p</i> = 0.005), and with delayed or non-union (<i>p</i> = 0.03). A subgroup analysis of patients without segmental fractures or bone loss treated with either CFF or IMF showed no significant difference in secondary bone grafting (<i>p</i> >0.99) and delayed or non-union rates (<i>p</i> = 0.72). Overall, one patient in each group went on to have an amputation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study found that CFF had a lower rate of DBI compared to IMF. Injuries with high-energy fracture patterns (segmental fractures or bone loss) were more likely to have delayed or non-union and require secondary bone grafting. These factors should be considered when selecting the appropriate method of definitive fixation.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Natalwala I, Chuo CB, Shariatmadari I, <i>et al</i>. Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(3):161-167.</p>","PeriodicalId":21979,"journal":{"name":"Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fb/0f/stlr-16-161.PMC8778722.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail.\",\"authors\":\"Ibrahim Natalwala,&nbsp;Cher Bing Chuo,&nbsp;Isla Shariatmadari,&nbsp;Gavin Barlow,&nbsp;Elizabeth Moulder,&nbsp;Joanna Bates,&nbsp;Hemant Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>High-energy grade III open fractures of tibia are associated with significant complications and generate debate over the ideal fixation method. This study compares the clinical outcomes for circular frame fixation (CFF) vs intramedullary nail fixation (IMF) in grade III open tibial fractures.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Single-centre retrospective study of patients admitted from January 2008 to December 2016. All patients with grade III open diaphyseal tibial fractures (AO 42 A, B, C), treated with either CFF or IMF, were included. The primary outcome was deep bone infection (DBI). Secondary outcomes were delayed or non-union, secondary intervention, and amputation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 limbs in 47 patients had CFF, and 25 limbs in 23 patients had IMF. Median time to definitive fixation was significantly longer for CFF at 9 days (IQR 3-13) compared to IMF at 1 day (IQR 0-3.5) (<i>p</i> <0.001). The DBI rate was significantly lower (2 vs 16%) in the CFF group (<i>p</i> = 0.04). There were 14 limbs (29%) with delayed or non-union in the CFF group vs 5 limbs (20%) in the IMF group. In the CFF group, significantly more limbs required bone grafting for delayed or non-union (<i>p</i> = 0.03). However, there was a greater proportion of limbs in the CFF group with segmental fractures or bone loss (46 vs 4%) and these high-energy fracture patterns were associated with secondary bone grafting (<i>p</i> = 0.005), and with delayed or non-union (<i>p</i> = 0.03). A subgroup analysis of patients without segmental fractures or bone loss treated with either CFF or IMF showed no significant difference in secondary bone grafting (<i>p</i> >0.99) and delayed or non-union rates (<i>p</i> = 0.72). Overall, one patient in each group went on to have an amputation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study found that CFF had a lower rate of DBI compared to IMF. Injuries with high-energy fracture patterns (segmental fractures or bone loss) were more likely to have delayed or non-union and require secondary bone grafting. These factors should be considered when selecting the appropriate method of definitive fixation.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Natalwala I, Chuo CB, Shariatmadari I, <i>et al</i>. Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(3):161-167.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fb/0f/stlr-16-161.PMC8778722.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1536\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

导读:高能III级胫骨开放性骨折与显著并发症相关,并对理想的固定方法产生争议。本研究比较了圆形框架内固定(CFF)与髓内钉内固定(IMF)治疗III级开放性胫骨骨折的临床结果。材料与方法:对2008年1月至2016年12月住院的患者进行单中心回顾性研究。所有接受CFF或IMF治疗的III级开放性胫骨骨干骨折(ao42 A, B, C)患者纳入研究。主要结局为深部骨感染(DBI)。次要结局是延迟或不愈合、二次干预和截肢。结果:47例CFF患者共48肢,23例IMF患者共25肢。与IMF的1天(IQR 0-3.5)相比,CFF的9天(IQR 3-13)至最终固定的中位时间明显更长(p p = 0.04)。CFF组有14个肢体(29%)出现延迟或不愈合,而IMF组有5个肢体(20%)。在CFF组中,因延迟或不愈合而需要植骨的肢体明显更多(p = 0.03)。然而,在CFF组中有更大比例的肢体出现节段性骨折或骨丢失(46% vs 4%),这些高能量骨折模式与二次植骨(p = 0.005)和延迟或不愈合(p = 0.03)相关。对没有节段性骨折或骨质丢失的患者进行亚组分析,CFF或IMF治疗的患者在二次植骨(p >0.99)和延迟或不愈合率(p = 0.72)方面没有显著差异。总的来说,每组中都有一名患者进行了截肢。结论:我们的研究发现,与IMF相比,CFF的DBI发生率较低。高能骨折类型(节段性骨折或骨丢失)的损伤更有可能延迟或不愈合,需要二次植骨。在选择合适的固定方法时应考虑这些因素。如何引用本文:Natalwala I, Chuo CB, Shariatmadari I等。III级骨干开放性胫骨骨折的结果和深部骨感染的发生率:圆形固定器与髓内钉。创伤肢体重建[j]; 2011;16(3):161-167。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail.

Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail.

Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail.

Introduction: High-energy grade III open fractures of tibia are associated with significant complications and generate debate over the ideal fixation method. This study compares the clinical outcomes for circular frame fixation (CFF) vs intramedullary nail fixation (IMF) in grade III open tibial fractures.

Materials and methods: Single-centre retrospective study of patients admitted from January 2008 to December 2016. All patients with grade III open diaphyseal tibial fractures (AO 42 A, B, C), treated with either CFF or IMF, were included. The primary outcome was deep bone infection (DBI). Secondary outcomes were delayed or non-union, secondary intervention, and amputation.

Results: A total of 48 limbs in 47 patients had CFF, and 25 limbs in 23 patients had IMF. Median time to definitive fixation was significantly longer for CFF at 9 days (IQR 3-13) compared to IMF at 1 day (IQR 0-3.5) (p <0.001). The DBI rate was significantly lower (2 vs 16%) in the CFF group (p = 0.04). There were 14 limbs (29%) with delayed or non-union in the CFF group vs 5 limbs (20%) in the IMF group. In the CFF group, significantly more limbs required bone grafting for delayed or non-union (p = 0.03). However, there was a greater proportion of limbs in the CFF group with segmental fractures or bone loss (46 vs 4%) and these high-energy fracture patterns were associated with secondary bone grafting (p = 0.005), and with delayed or non-union (p = 0.03). A subgroup analysis of patients without segmental fractures or bone loss treated with either CFF or IMF showed no significant difference in secondary bone grafting (p >0.99) and delayed or non-union rates (p = 0.72). Overall, one patient in each group went on to have an amputation.

Conclusion: Our study found that CFF had a lower rate of DBI compared to IMF. Injuries with high-energy fracture patterns (segmental fractures or bone loss) were more likely to have delayed or non-union and require secondary bone grafting. These factors should be considered when selecting the appropriate method of definitive fixation.

How to cite this article: Natalwala I, Chuo CB, Shariatmadari I, et al. Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(3):161-167.

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
Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction
Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction is dedicated to surgeons, allied medical professionals and researchers in the field of orthopaedics and trauma. The scope of the journal is to discuss the fields of skeletal injury, and the complications thereof, congenital and acquired limb deformities and deficiencies, and orthopaedic-related infection, together with their surgical and non-surgical treatments. The journal publishes original articles, reviews, case reports, descriptions of new or recognised treatment techniques, forum discussions of clinical scenarios and relevant correspondence. It aims to provide a widely accessible source of useful information to practitioners in the field through the problem- or technique-based approach of published articles.
×
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