...
首页> 外文期刊>Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction. >Tibial plateau fractures: compared outcomes between ARIF and ORIF
【24h】

Tibial plateau fractures: compared outcomes between ARIF and ORIF

机译:胫骨平台骨折:比较ARIF和ORIF的结果

获取原文
           

摘要

The purpose of this study is to compare arthroscopic assisted reduction internal fixation (ARIF) treatment with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) treatment in patients with tibial plateau fractures. We studied 100 patients with tibial plateau fractures (54 men and 46 women) examined by X-rays and CT scans, divided into 2 groups. Group A with associated meniscus tear was treated by ARIF technique, while in group B ORIF technique was used. The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 116?months. The patients were evaluated both clinically and radiologically according to the Rasmussen and HSS (The Hospital for Special Surgery knee-rating) scores. In group A, the average Rasmussen clinical score is 27.62?±?2.60 (range, 19–30), while in group B is 26.81?±?2.65 (range, 21–30). HSS score in group A was 76.36?±?14.19 (range, 38–91) as the average clinical result, while in group B was 73.12?±?14.55 (range, 45–91). According to Rasmussen radiological results, the average score for group A was 16.56?±?2.66 (range, 8–18), while in group B was 15.88?±?2.71 (range, 10–18). Sixty-nine of 100 patients in our study had associated intra-articular lesions. We had 5 early complications and 36 late complications. The study suggests that there are no differences between ARIF and ORIF treatment in Schatzker type I fractures. ARIF technique may increase the clinical outcome in Schatzker type II–III–IV fractures. In Schatzker type V and VI fractures, ARIF and ORIF techniques have both poor medium- and long-term results but ARIF treatment, when indicated, is the best choice for the lower rate of infections.
机译:这项研究的目的是比较胫骨平台骨折患者的关节镜辅助复位内固定(ARIF)治疗与开放复位内固定(ORIF)治疗。我们通过X射线和CT扫描检查了100例胫骨平台骨折的患者(54例男性和46例女性),分为两组。 A组伴有半月板撕裂,采用ARIF技术治疗,B组采用ORIF技术。随访时间为12到116个月。根据Rasmussen和HSS(特殊外科医院膝关节评级)评分对患者进行临床和放射学评估。在A组中,Rasmussen的平均临床评分为27.62?±?2.60(范围为19-30),而在B组中为26.81?±?2.65(范围为21-30)。 A组的HSS评分平均为76.36±14.19(范围38-91),而B组的HSS评分为73.12±14.55(范围45-91)。根据拉斯穆森的放射学结果,A组的平均得分为16.56±2.66(范围8-18),而B组的平均得分为15.88±2.71(范围10-18)。在我们的研究中,有100名患者中有69名患有关节内病变。我们有5例早期并发症和36例晚期并发症。研究表明,在Schatzker I型骨折中,ARIF和ORIF治疗之间没有差异。 ARIF技术可能会增加Schatzker II–III–IV型骨折的临床疗效。在Schatzker的V型和VI型骨折中,ARIF和ORIF技术的中期和长期效果均较差,但如果需要,ARIF治疗是降低感染率的最佳选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号