近端指间关节置换术三种手术入路的疗效比较

E. Bodmer, M. Marks, S. Hensler, S. Schindele, D. Herren
{"title":"近端指间关节置换术三种手术入路的疗效比较","authors":"E. Bodmer, M. Marks, S. Hensler, S. Schindele, D. Herren","doi":"10.1177/1753193419891382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective was to compare outcomes of the volar, Chamay and tendon splitting approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty using a surface-replacing implant (CapFlex-PIP). One-hundred prospectively documented patients with a 2-year follow-up were included. Range of proximal interphalangeal joint motion, the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and complications were analysed. Between baseline and follow-up, mean proximal interphalangeal joint motion increased for the volar (53° to 54°), Chamay (38° to 53°) and tendon splitting (40° to 61°) approaches. The volar approach yielded the greatest flexion and the highest extension deficit. The mean brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores at baseline and 2 years were 45 and 74 (volar), 45 and 66 (Chamay) and 41 and 75 (tendon splitting). Seven patients in the Chamay group and two in the volar group required a reoperation consisting of teno-/arthrolysis. The tendon splitting approach tended to result in the best outcomes that were associated with fewer complications compared with the volar and Chamay approaches. Level of evidence: IV","PeriodicalId":73762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hand surgery (Edinburgh, Scotland)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1753193419891382","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of outcomes of three surgical approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty using a surface-replacing implant\",\"authors\":\"E. Bodmer, M. Marks, S. Hensler, S. Schindele, D. Herren\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1753193419891382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The objective was to compare outcomes of the volar, Chamay and tendon splitting approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty using a surface-replacing implant (CapFlex-PIP). One-hundred prospectively documented patients with a 2-year follow-up were included. Range of proximal interphalangeal joint motion, the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and complications were analysed. Between baseline and follow-up, mean proximal interphalangeal joint motion increased for the volar (53° to 54°), Chamay (38° to 53°) and tendon splitting (40° to 61°) approaches. The volar approach yielded the greatest flexion and the highest extension deficit. The mean brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores at baseline and 2 years were 45 and 74 (volar), 45 and 66 (Chamay) and 41 and 75 (tendon splitting). Seven patients in the Chamay group and two in the volar group required a reoperation consisting of teno-/arthrolysis. The tendon splitting approach tended to result in the best outcomes that were associated with fewer complications compared with the volar and Chamay approaches. Level of evidence: IV\",\"PeriodicalId\":73762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of hand surgery (Edinburgh, Scotland)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1753193419891382\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of hand surgery (Edinburgh, Scotland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193419891382\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hand surgery (Edinburgh, Scotland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193419891382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

目的是比较掌侧入路、Chamay入路和肌腱劈裂入路在近端指间关节置换术中使用表面置换假体(CapFlex-PIP)的结果。纳入了100名前瞻性记录的患者,随访2年。分析近端指间关节活动范围、简略的密歇根手部结果问卷及并发症。在基线和随访期间,掌侧(53°至54°)、Chamay(38°至53°)和肌腱劈裂(40°至61°)入路的平均近端指间关节活动度增加。掌侧入路屈曲最大,伸展缺陷最大。基线和2年的密歇根手部结果问卷平均得分分别为45分和74分(掌侧),45分和66分(Chamay), 41分和75分(肌腱分裂)。Chamay组的7名患者和掌侧组的2名患者需要再手术,包括肌腱/关节松解术。与掌侧入路和Chamay入路相比,肌腱劈裂入路的预后最好,并发症较少。证据等级:四级
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of outcomes of three surgical approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty using a surface-replacing implant
The objective was to compare outcomes of the volar, Chamay and tendon splitting approaches for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty using a surface-replacing implant (CapFlex-PIP). One-hundred prospectively documented patients with a 2-year follow-up were included. Range of proximal interphalangeal joint motion, the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and complications were analysed. Between baseline and follow-up, mean proximal interphalangeal joint motion increased for the volar (53° to 54°), Chamay (38° to 53°) and tendon splitting (40° to 61°) approaches. The volar approach yielded the greatest flexion and the highest extension deficit. The mean brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores at baseline and 2 years were 45 and 74 (volar), 45 and 66 (Chamay) and 41 and 75 (tendon splitting). Seven patients in the Chamay group and two in the volar group required a reoperation consisting of teno-/arthrolysis. The tendon splitting approach tended to result in the best outcomes that were associated with fewer complications compared with the volar and Chamay approaches. Level of evidence: IV
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