内固定架与外固定架在治疗不稳定骨盆环损伤中的作用:一项前瞻性比较队列研究。

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Mohamed Abo-Elsoud, Mostafa I Awad, Mahmoud Abdel Karim, Sherif Khaled, Mohamed Abdelmoneim
{"title":"内固定架与外固定架在治疗不稳定骨盆环损伤中的作用:一项前瞻性比较队列研究。","authors":"Mohamed Abo-Elsoud,&nbsp;Mostafa I Awad,&nbsp;Mahmoud Abdel Karim,&nbsp;Sherif Khaled,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdelmoneim","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v14.i7.562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reconstruction of the pelvic ring anatomy in unstable anterior pelvic ring injuries is a significant step to reduce the mortality rate associated with these injuries efficiently. There is a debate on using either an anterior subcutaneous pelvis internal fixator (INFIX) or an anterior supra-acetabular external fixator (EXFIX) to manage an unstable anterior pelvic ring fracture.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the functional and radiological outcomes and complications of INFIX <i>vs</i> EXFIX in managing unstable pelvic ring injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort study included 54 patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures. The patients were divided into two groups; the INFIX group, in which 30 cases were fixed by INFIX, and the EXFIX group, in which 24 patients were treated by EXFIX. The average age in the EXFIX group was 31.17 years (16-57 years), while in the INFIX group, it was 34.5 years (17-53 years). The study included 20 (66.7%) males and 10 (33.3%) females in the INFIX group and 10 (41.7%) males and 14 (58.3%) females in the EXFIX group. The radiological outcomes were evaluated using Matta and Tornetta's score, and the functional outcomes using the Majeed score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results revealed a statistically significant difference between both groups (<i>P</i> = 0.013) regarding radiological outcomes, according to Matta and Tornetta's score in favor of the INFIX group. Sitting, standing, and walking abilities were measured at a 3-mo follow-up visit using Majeed score modules. It was significantly better among the INFIX group than the EXFIX group in all three modules. At the final follow-up, both groups had no statistically significant difference according to the Majeed score; 92.35 in the INFIX group and 90.99 in the EXFIX group (<i>P</i> = 0.513). A lower surgical site infection rate was noticed in the INFIX group (<i>P</i> = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anterior subcutaneous pelvis INFIX is associated with better radiological outcomes and a lower infection rate than anterior supra-acetabular EXFIX in managing patients with unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":47843,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":"14 7","pages":"562-571"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/38/df/WJO-14-562.PMC10359749.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Internal fixator <i>vs</i> external fixator in the management of unstable pelvic ring injuries: A prospective comparative cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Abo-Elsoud,&nbsp;Mostafa I Awad,&nbsp;Mahmoud Abdel Karim,&nbsp;Sherif Khaled,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdelmoneim\",\"doi\":\"10.5312/wjo.v14.i7.562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reconstruction of the pelvic ring anatomy in unstable anterior pelvic ring injuries is a significant step to reduce the mortality rate associated with these injuries efficiently. There is a debate on using either an anterior subcutaneous pelvis internal fixator (INFIX) or an anterior supra-acetabular external fixator (EXFIX) to manage an unstable anterior pelvic ring fracture.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the functional and radiological outcomes and complications of INFIX <i>vs</i> EXFIX in managing unstable pelvic ring injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort study included 54 patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures. The patients were divided into two groups; the INFIX group, in which 30 cases were fixed by INFIX, and the EXFIX group, in which 24 patients were treated by EXFIX. The average age in the EXFIX group was 31.17 years (16-57 years), while in the INFIX group, it was 34.5 years (17-53 years). The study included 20 (66.7%) males and 10 (33.3%) females in the INFIX group and 10 (41.7%) males and 14 (58.3%) females in the EXFIX group. The radiological outcomes were evaluated using Matta and Tornetta's score, and the functional outcomes using the Majeed score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results revealed a statistically significant difference between both groups (<i>P</i> = 0.013) regarding radiological outcomes, according to Matta and Tornetta's score in favor of the INFIX group. Sitting, standing, and walking abilities were measured at a 3-mo follow-up visit using Majeed score modules. It was significantly better among the INFIX group than the EXFIX group in all three modules. At the final follow-up, both groups had no statistically significant difference according to the Majeed score; 92.35 in the INFIX group and 90.99 in the EXFIX group (<i>P</i> = 0.513). A lower surgical site infection rate was noticed in the INFIX group (<i>P</i> = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anterior subcutaneous pelvis INFIX is associated with better radiological outcomes and a lower infection rate than anterior supra-acetabular EXFIX in managing patients with unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\"14 7\",\"pages\":\"562-571\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/38/df/WJO-14-562.PMC10359749.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i7.562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i7.562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:骨盆前环不稳定损伤的重建是有效降低此类损伤相关死亡率的重要一步。对于不稳定骨盆前环骨折,使用骨盆前皮下内固定器(INFIX)还是使用髋臼上前外固定器(EXFIX)一直存在争议。目的:比较INFIX与EXFIX治疗不稳定骨盆环损伤的功能和影像学结果及并发症。方法:一项前瞻性队列研究包括54例不稳定骨盆环骨折患者。患者分为两组;INFIX组用INFIX固定30例,EXFIX组用EXFIX治疗24例。EXFIX组患者平均年龄为31.17岁(16-57岁),INFIX组患者平均年龄为34.5岁(17-53岁)。该研究包括INFIX组20例(66.7%)男性和10例(33.3%)女性,EXFIX组10例(41.7%)男性和14例(58.3%)女性。使用Matta和Tornetta评分评估放射学结果,使用Majeed评分评估功能结果。结果:根据Matta和Tornetta的评分,结果显示两组在放射学结果方面有统计学显著差异(P = 0.013)。在3个月的随访中使用Majeed评分模块测量坐姿、站立和行走能力。在所有三个模块中,INFIX组明显优于EXFIX组。最后随访时,两组患者Majeed评分差异无统计学意义;INFIX组为92.35,EXFIX组为90.99 (P = 0.513)。INFIX组手术部位感染率较低(P = 0.007)。结论:在治疗不稳定骨盆前环骨折患者时,骨盆前皮下内固定比髋臼上前内固定具有更好的影像学结果和更低的感染率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Internal fixator <i>vs</i> external fixator in the management of unstable pelvic ring injuries: A prospective comparative cohort study.

Internal fixator <i>vs</i> external fixator in the management of unstable pelvic ring injuries: A prospective comparative cohort study.

Internal fixator <i>vs</i> external fixator in the management of unstable pelvic ring injuries: A prospective comparative cohort study.

Internal fixator vs external fixator in the management of unstable pelvic ring injuries: A prospective comparative cohort study.

Background: Reconstruction of the pelvic ring anatomy in unstable anterior pelvic ring injuries is a significant step to reduce the mortality rate associated with these injuries efficiently. There is a debate on using either an anterior subcutaneous pelvis internal fixator (INFIX) or an anterior supra-acetabular external fixator (EXFIX) to manage an unstable anterior pelvic ring fracture.

Aim: To compare the functional and radiological outcomes and complications of INFIX vs EXFIX in managing unstable pelvic ring injuries.

Methods: A prospective cohort study included 54 patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures. The patients were divided into two groups; the INFIX group, in which 30 cases were fixed by INFIX, and the EXFIX group, in which 24 patients were treated by EXFIX. The average age in the EXFIX group was 31.17 years (16-57 years), while in the INFIX group, it was 34.5 years (17-53 years). The study included 20 (66.7%) males and 10 (33.3%) females in the INFIX group and 10 (41.7%) males and 14 (58.3%) females in the EXFIX group. The radiological outcomes were evaluated using Matta and Tornetta's score, and the functional outcomes using the Majeed score.

Results: The results revealed a statistically significant difference between both groups (P = 0.013) regarding radiological outcomes, according to Matta and Tornetta's score in favor of the INFIX group. Sitting, standing, and walking abilities were measured at a 3-mo follow-up visit using Majeed score modules. It was significantly better among the INFIX group than the EXFIX group in all three modules. At the final follow-up, both groups had no statistically significant difference according to the Majeed score; 92.35 in the INFIX group and 90.99 in the EXFIX group (P = 0.513). A lower surgical site infection rate was noticed in the INFIX group (P = 0.007).

Conclusion: Anterior subcutaneous pelvis INFIX is associated with better radiological outcomes and a lower infection rate than anterior supra-acetabular EXFIX in managing patients with unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures.

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
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
814
×
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