闭合复位石膏和掌侧锁定钢板治疗60岁以上桡骨远端骨折的临床和功能分析

Ceyhun Çağlar, Ali Said Nazlıgül, Batuhan Akbulut, M. Akkaya
{"title":"闭合复位石膏和掌侧锁定钢板治疗60岁以上桡骨远端骨折的临床和功能分析","authors":"Ceyhun Çağlar, Ali Said Nazlıgül, Batuhan Akbulut, M. Akkaya","doi":"10.19161/etd.1208986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Many different methods have been described in the treatment of distal radius fractures (DRF) in the elderly population, and which one is the better method is a matter of debate among orthopedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the results of closed reduction and plastering (CRP) and volar locking plate (VLP), which are used in the treatment of DRF in the elderly population. \nMaterials and Methods: Between January 2019 and December 2020, 36 patients with DRF aged > 60 years were evaluated retrospectively. There were 19 patients in the CRP group and 17 patients in the VLP group. Wrist flexion, extension, pronation, supination, ulnar deviation, and radial deviation degrees and grip strength were measured in the first year of their treatment. The patients were evaluated functionally by patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE), modified Green and O'Brien score (MGOS), and resting and stress visual analogue scale (VAS). \nResults: In both groups, similar ROM values were obtained and no significant difference was observed. While the PRWE score was 17.5 ± 5.5 in the CRP group and 12.5 ± 4.8 in the VLP group, the MGOS score was 83.0 ± 7.4 in the CRP group and 86.8 ± 12.6 in the VLP group, and the scores were not significantly different (p = 0.802, p = 0.315). While there was almost no pain in both groups at rest, more pain was felt in the VKP group under stress. While grip strength was 20.9 ± 6.4 kg in the CRP group, it was 22.2 ± 6.8 kg in the VLP group, and there was no significant difference compared to the contralateral wrist. \nConclusion: There is no clinical and functional difference between CRP and VLP in the one-year period after DRF treatment in the patient population aged > 60 years. Treatment should be planned according to the functional capacity of the patient.","PeriodicalId":32499,"journal":{"name":"Ege Tip Dergisi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical and functional analysis of closed reduction-plastering and volar locking plate methods in distal radius fractures in patients over 60 years of age\",\"authors\":\"Ceyhun Çağlar, Ali Said Nazlıgül, Batuhan Akbulut, M. Akkaya\",\"doi\":\"10.19161/etd.1208986\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: Many different methods have been described in the treatment of distal radius fractures (DRF) in the elderly population, and which one is the better method is a matter of debate among orthopedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the results of closed reduction and plastering (CRP) and volar locking plate (VLP), which are used in the treatment of DRF in the elderly population. \\nMaterials and Methods: Between January 2019 and December 2020, 36 patients with DRF aged > 60 years were evaluated retrospectively. There were 19 patients in the CRP group and 17 patients in the VLP group. Wrist flexion, extension, pronation, supination, ulnar deviation, and radial deviation degrees and grip strength were measured in the first year of their treatment. The patients were evaluated functionally by patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE), modified Green and O'Brien score (MGOS), and resting and stress visual analogue scale (VAS). \\nResults: In both groups, similar ROM values were obtained and no significant difference was observed. While the PRWE score was 17.5 ± 5.5 in the CRP group and 12.5 ± 4.8 in the VLP group, the MGOS score was 83.0 ± 7.4 in the CRP group and 86.8 ± 12.6 in the VLP group, and the scores were not significantly different (p = 0.802, p = 0.315). While there was almost no pain in both groups at rest, more pain was felt in the VKP group under stress. While grip strength was 20.9 ± 6.4 kg in the CRP group, it was 22.2 ± 6.8 kg in the VLP group, and there was no significant difference compared to the contralateral wrist. \\nConclusion: There is no clinical and functional difference between CRP and VLP in the one-year period after DRF treatment in the patient population aged > 60 years. Treatment should be planned according to the functional capacity of the patient.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32499,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ege Tip Dergisi\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ege Tip Dergisi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19161/etd.1208986\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ege Tip Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19161/etd.1208986","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在老年人桡骨远端骨折(DRF)的治疗中,已经描述了许多不同的方法,哪种方法更好是骨科医生争论的问题。本研究的目的是比较闭合复位抹灰(CRP)和掌侧锁定钢板(VLP)治疗老年DRF的结果。材料和方法:在2019年1月至2020年12月期间,对36名年龄>60岁的DRF患者进行回顾性评估。CRP组19例,VLP组17例。在治疗的第一年测量腕关节屈曲、伸展、内旋、旋后、尺骨偏斜、桡骨偏斜程度和握力。通过患者评定腕关节评估(PRWE)、改良格林和奥布莱恩评分(MGOS)以及静息和应激视觉模拟量表(VAS)对患者进行功能评估。结果:两组患者的ROM值相似,无明显差异。CRP组的PRWE评分为17.5±5.5,VLP组为12.5±4.8,而CRP组的MGOS评分为83.0±7.4和VLP组的86.8±12.6,两者差异无统计学意义(p=0.802,p=0.315)。虽然两组在休息时几乎没有疼痛,但VKP组在压力下感觉到更多的疼痛。CRP组的握力为20.9±6.4 kg,VLP组为22.2±6.8 kg,与对侧手腕相比没有显著差异。结论:DRF治疗后一年内,60岁以上患者的CRP和VLP在临床和功能上没有差异。治疗应根据患者的功能能力进行规划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical and functional analysis of closed reduction-plastering and volar locking plate methods in distal radius fractures in patients over 60 years of age
Aim: Many different methods have been described in the treatment of distal radius fractures (DRF) in the elderly population, and which one is the better method is a matter of debate among orthopedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the results of closed reduction and plastering (CRP) and volar locking plate (VLP), which are used in the treatment of DRF in the elderly population. Materials and Methods: Between January 2019 and December 2020, 36 patients with DRF aged > 60 years were evaluated retrospectively. There were 19 patients in the CRP group and 17 patients in the VLP group. Wrist flexion, extension, pronation, supination, ulnar deviation, and radial deviation degrees and grip strength were measured in the first year of their treatment. The patients were evaluated functionally by patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE), modified Green and O'Brien score (MGOS), and resting and stress visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: In both groups, similar ROM values were obtained and no significant difference was observed. While the PRWE score was 17.5 ± 5.5 in the CRP group and 12.5 ± 4.8 in the VLP group, the MGOS score was 83.0 ± 7.4 in the CRP group and 86.8 ± 12.6 in the VLP group, and the scores were not significantly different (p = 0.802, p = 0.315). While there was almost no pain in both groups at rest, more pain was felt in the VKP group under stress. While grip strength was 20.9 ± 6.4 kg in the CRP group, it was 22.2 ± 6.8 kg in the VLP group, and there was no significant difference compared to the contralateral wrist. Conclusion: There is no clinical and functional difference between CRP and VLP in the one-year period after DRF treatment in the patient population aged > 60 years. Treatment should be planned according to the functional capacity of the patient.
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
79
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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