股骨髓内钉:骨折表与手动牵引的比较:一项前瞻性随机研究

D. Stephen, H. Kreder, E. Schemitsch, Lisa B Conlan, L. Wild, M. McKee
{"title":"股骨髓内钉:骨折表与手动牵引的比较:一项前瞻性随机研究","authors":"D. Stephen, H. Kreder, E. Schemitsch, Lisa B Conlan, L. Wild, M. McKee","doi":"10.2106/00004623-200209000-00002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The purpose of this study was to compare manual traction and fracture-table traction for the reduction and nailing of femoral shaft fractures. We evaluated the quality of the reduction, operative time, complications, and functional status of the patient.Methods: Eighty-seven consecutive adult patients with a unilateral fracture of the femoral diaphysis that did not extend into the knee joint or proximal to the lesser trochanter were enrolled in the study. Patients who were transferred to our institution more than forty-eight hours after injury; those with multiple-system injuries, injury to the ipsilateral lower extremity, or pathological fracture; and those who were unable or unwilling to provide consent or to return for follow-up were excluded. Forty-five patients were randomized to manual traction and forty-two, to fracture-table traction; all were treated in the supine position. The number of surgical assistants, operative and fluoroscopy time, complications, functional scores, and other outcomes were recorded.Results: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, Glasgow Coma Score, Injury Severity Score, side or mechanism of injury, fracture type, or time from injury to treatment. Internal malrotation was significantly more common when the fracture table had been used: twelve (29%) of the forty-two femora were internally rotated by >10° compared with three (7%) of the forty-five treated with manual traction (p = 0.007). Total operative time, from the beginning of the patient positioning to the completion of the skin closure, was decreased from a mean of 139 minutes (range, 100 to 212 minutes) when the fracture table was used to a mean of 119 minutes (range, sixty-five to 180 minutes) when manual traction was used (p = 0.033). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups with regard to the number of assistants per case (mean two; range, zero to three), fluoroscopy time, other complications including femoral shortening or lengthening, or functional status of the patient at one year.Conclusions: Compared with fracture-table traction with the patient in a supine position, manual traction for intramedullary nailing of isolated fractures of the femoral shaft is an effective technique that decreases operative time and improves the quality of the reduction.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"5 1","pages":"1514–1521"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"109","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Femoral Intramedullary Nailing: Comparison of Fracture-Table and Manual Traction A Prospective, Randomized Study\",\"authors\":\"D. Stephen, H. Kreder, E. Schemitsch, Lisa B Conlan, L. Wild, M. McKee\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/00004623-200209000-00002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The purpose of this study was to compare manual traction and fracture-table traction for the reduction and nailing of femoral shaft fractures. We evaluated the quality of the reduction, operative time, complications, and functional status of the patient.Methods: Eighty-seven consecutive adult patients with a unilateral fracture of the femoral diaphysis that did not extend into the knee joint or proximal to the lesser trochanter were enrolled in the study. Patients who were transferred to our institution more than forty-eight hours after injury; those with multiple-system injuries, injury to the ipsilateral lower extremity, or pathological fracture; and those who were unable or unwilling to provide consent or to return for follow-up were excluded. Forty-five patients were randomized to manual traction and forty-two, to fracture-table traction; all were treated in the supine position. The number of surgical assistants, operative and fluoroscopy time, complications, functional scores, and other outcomes were recorded.Results: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, Glasgow Coma Score, Injury Severity Score, side or mechanism of injury, fracture type, or time from injury to treatment. Internal malrotation was significantly more common when the fracture table had been used: twelve (29%) of the forty-two femora were internally rotated by >10° compared with three (7%) of the forty-five treated with manual traction (p = 0.007). Total operative time, from the beginning of the patient positioning to the completion of the skin closure, was decreased from a mean of 139 minutes (range, 100 to 212 minutes) when the fracture table was used to a mean of 119 minutes (range, sixty-five to 180 minutes) when manual traction was used (p = 0.033). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups with regard to the number of assistants per case (mean two; range, zero to three), fluoroscopy time, other complications including femoral shortening or lengthening, or functional status of the patient at one year.Conclusions: Compared with fracture-table traction with the patient in a supine position, manual traction for intramedullary nailing of isolated fractures of the femoral shaft is an effective technique that decreases operative time and improves the quality of the reduction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"1514–1521\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"109\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200209000-00002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200209000-00002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 109

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是比较人工牵引和可骨折牵引在股骨干骨折复位和内钉治疗中的作用。我们评估了复位质量、手术时间、并发症和患者的功能状态。方法:连续87例成人单侧股骨骨干骨折未延伸至膝关节或小粗隆近端纳入研究。受伤后48小时以上转至我院的患者;多系统损伤、同侧下肢损伤或病理性骨折者;那些不能或不愿提供同意或返回随访的人被排除在外。45例患者随机分为手动牵引组和42例可骨折牵引组;所有患者均采用仰卧位。记录手术助理人数、手术和透视时间、并发症、功能评分和其他结果。结果:两组患者在年龄、性别、格拉斯哥昏迷评分、损伤严重程度评分、损伤侧边或机制、骨折类型、损伤至治疗时间等方面均无显著差异。使用骨折台时,内旋不良明显更常见:42例股骨中有12例(29%)内旋bbb10°,而45例采用手动牵引的患者中有3例(7%)内旋(p = 0.007)。从患者体位开始到皮肤闭合完成的总手术时间,从使用骨折表时的平均139分钟(范围100至212分钟)减少到使用手动牵引时的平均119分钟(范围65至180分钟)(p = 0.033)。两个治疗组在每个病例的助理人数方面没有显著差异(平均2人;范围,0到3),透视时间,其他并发症,包括股骨缩短或延长,或患者一年后的功能状况。结论:与仰卧位患者可骨折牵引相比,手工牵引髓内钉治疗孤立性股骨干骨折可有效缩短手术时间,提高复位质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Femoral Intramedullary Nailing: Comparison of Fracture-Table and Manual Traction A Prospective, Randomized Study
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare manual traction and fracture-table traction for the reduction and nailing of femoral shaft fractures. We evaluated the quality of the reduction, operative time, complications, and functional status of the patient.Methods: Eighty-seven consecutive adult patients with a unilateral fracture of the femoral diaphysis that did not extend into the knee joint or proximal to the lesser trochanter were enrolled in the study. Patients who were transferred to our institution more than forty-eight hours after injury; those with multiple-system injuries, injury to the ipsilateral lower extremity, or pathological fracture; and those who were unable or unwilling to provide consent or to return for follow-up were excluded. Forty-five patients were randomized to manual traction and forty-two, to fracture-table traction; all were treated in the supine position. The number of surgical assistants, operative and fluoroscopy time, complications, functional scores, and other outcomes were recorded.Results: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, gender, Glasgow Coma Score, Injury Severity Score, side or mechanism of injury, fracture type, or time from injury to treatment. Internal malrotation was significantly more common when the fracture table had been used: twelve (29%) of the forty-two femora were internally rotated by >10° compared with three (7%) of the forty-five treated with manual traction (p = 0.007). Total operative time, from the beginning of the patient positioning to the completion of the skin closure, was decreased from a mean of 139 minutes (range, 100 to 212 minutes) when the fracture table was used to a mean of 119 minutes (range, sixty-five to 180 minutes) when manual traction was used (p = 0.033). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups with regard to the number of assistants per case (mean two; range, zero to three), fluoroscopy time, other complications including femoral shortening or lengthening, or functional status of the patient at one year.Conclusions: Compared with fracture-table traction with the patient in a supine position, manual traction for intramedullary nailing of isolated fractures of the femoral shaft is an effective technique that decreases operative time and improves the quality of the reduction.
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