掌侧锁定钢板、非桥式外固定架和桥式外固定架治疗桡骨远端关节内粉碎性骨折三种手术方法的比较。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine
M. A. Talmaç, Mehmet Akif Görgel, M. Kanar, O. Tok, H. Özdemir
{"title":"掌侧锁定钢板、非桥式外固定架和桥式外固定架治疗桡骨远端关节内粉碎性骨折三种手术方法的比较。","authors":"M. A. Talmaç, Mehmet Akif Görgel, M. Kanar, O. Tok, H. Özdemir","doi":"10.5606/ehc.2019.66955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate both clinical and radiological results of intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures treated with volar locking plate (VLP), non-bridging external fixator (NbEF), and bridging external fixator (BEF). PATIENTS AND METHODS 95 patients (44 males, 51 females; median age 49 years; interquartile range (IQR), 37 to 60 years) who were treated with VLP, NbEF, or BEF due to intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures between January 2010 and April 2014 were evaluated retrospectively. 34 of these patients were treated with a VLP (VLP group), 30 with a NbEF (NbEF group) and 31 with a BEF (BEF group). In the final follow-up, all patients were evaluated according to clinical and radiological parameters. RESULTS The median follow-up was 5 (IQR, 4 to 6) years. The VLP and NbEF groups had better results than the BEF group in terms of wrist range of motion, loss of grip strength, Green O'Brien, Mayo Modified Wrist, The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and VAS scores. The VLP group had the most significant radiological improvement. CONCLUSION Although clinical and radiological results for intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures are more significantly improved in patients treated with VLP, favorable results close to VLP can be also obtained with NbEF. The BEF seems to be the least effective treatment option among the three surgical methods.","PeriodicalId":50551,"journal":{"name":"Eklem Hastaliklari Ve Cerrahisi-Joint Diseases and Related Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of three surgical methods in the treatment of intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures: Volar locking plate, non-bridging external fixator, and bridging external fixator.\",\"authors\":\"M. A. Talmaç, Mehmet Akif Görgel, M. Kanar, O. Tok, H. Özdemir\",\"doi\":\"10.5606/ehc.2019.66955\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate both clinical and radiological results of intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures treated with volar locking plate (VLP), non-bridging external fixator (NbEF), and bridging external fixator (BEF). PATIENTS AND METHODS 95 patients (44 males, 51 females; median age 49 years; interquartile range (IQR), 37 to 60 years) who were treated with VLP, NbEF, or BEF due to intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures between January 2010 and April 2014 were evaluated retrospectively. 34 of these patients were treated with a VLP (VLP group), 30 with a NbEF (NbEF group) and 31 with a BEF (BEF group). In the final follow-up, all patients were evaluated according to clinical and radiological parameters. RESULTS The median follow-up was 5 (IQR, 4 to 6) years. The VLP and NbEF groups had better results than the BEF group in terms of wrist range of motion, loss of grip strength, Green O'Brien, Mayo Modified Wrist, The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and VAS scores. The VLP group had the most significant radiological improvement. CONCLUSION Although clinical and radiological results for intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures are more significantly improved in patients treated with VLP, favorable results close to VLP can be also obtained with NbEF. The BEF seems to be the least effective treatment option among the three surgical methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eklem Hastaliklari Ve Cerrahisi-Joint Diseases and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eklem Hastaliklari Ve Cerrahisi-Joint Diseases and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2019.66955\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eklem Hastaliklari Ve Cerrahisi-Joint Diseases and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2019.66955","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估掌侧锁定钢板(VLP)、非桥式外固定架(NbEF)和桥式外固定架(BEF)治疗桡骨远端关节内粉碎性骨折的临床和影像学结果。患者与方法95例患者(男44例,女51例;中位年龄49岁;回顾性评价2010年1月至2014年4月期间因桡骨远端关节内粉碎性骨折而接受VLP、NbEF或BEF治疗的患者的四分位间距(IQR)(37 ~ 60岁)。其中34例采用VLP (VLP组),30例采用NbEF (NbEF组),31例采用BEF (BEF组)。在最后的随访中,根据临床和放射学参数对所有患者进行评估。结果中位随访时间为5 (IQR, 4 ~ 6)年。VLP组和NbEF组在腕关节活动度、握力丧失、Green O'Brien、Mayo改良腕关节、手臂、肩膀和手的快速残疾(QuickDASH)和VAS评分方面均优于BEF组。VLP组放射学改善最为显著。结论虽然VLP治疗桡骨远端关节内粉碎性骨折的临床和影像学结果更明显改善,但NbEF也可以获得接近VLP的良好结果。BEF似乎是三种手术方法中最不有效的治疗选择。
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 three surgical methods in the treatment of intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures: Volar locking plate, non-bridging external fixator, and bridging external fixator.
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate both clinical and radiological results of intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures treated with volar locking plate (VLP), non-bridging external fixator (NbEF), and bridging external fixator (BEF). PATIENTS AND METHODS 95 patients (44 males, 51 females; median age 49 years; interquartile range (IQR), 37 to 60 years) who were treated with VLP, NbEF, or BEF due to intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures between January 2010 and April 2014 were evaluated retrospectively. 34 of these patients were treated with a VLP (VLP group), 30 with a NbEF (NbEF group) and 31 with a BEF (BEF group). In the final follow-up, all patients were evaluated according to clinical and radiological parameters. RESULTS The median follow-up was 5 (IQR, 4 to 6) years. The VLP and NbEF groups had better results than the BEF group in terms of wrist range of motion, loss of grip strength, Green O'Brien, Mayo Modified Wrist, The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and VAS scores. The VLP group had the most significant radiological improvement. CONCLUSION Although clinical and radiological results for intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures are more significantly improved in patients treated with VLP, favorable results close to VLP can be also obtained with NbEF. The BEF seems to be the least effective treatment option among the three surgical methods.
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
43.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Joint Diseases and Related Surgery (formerly published as Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi) is the official publication of the Turkish Joint Diseases Foundation. Joint Diseases and Related Surgery is open access journal. The full text of the articles of the Journal is freely available without embargo since 1990. Joint Diseases and Related Surgery is international, double-blind peer-reviewed periodical journal bringing the latest developments in all aspects of joint diseases and related surgey.
×
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