应用微型钢板与交叉克氏针融合手指近指间关节的疗效对比

目的探讨应用微型铜板螺钉与交叉克氏针融合手指近指间关节的手术疗效。方法对53例79指近指间关节内骨折、骨缺损患者,分别采用微型钢板螺钉和交叉克氏针固定进行关节融合,其中A组30例47指行微型钢板螺钉固定,B组23例32指行交叉克氏针固定。术后分别对并发症、骨愈合情况以及功能恢复进行比较。功能恢复情况按照TAM功能评定标准进行比较。结果术后随访4～24个月,平均11个月。A组无感染及皮肤坏死,无延迟愈合、骨不连及旋转畸形。融合关节临床愈合时间为6～8周,平均7．3周,X片示骨性愈合时间为8～9周;B组针道感染3指,旋转畸形3指．延迟愈合4指,无骨不连。融合关节,临床愈合时间为7～15周,平均11．2周。X片示骨性愈合时间为10～16周。优良率A组为90．7％,B组为67．1％。术后并发症：A组在邻近关节僵硬、局部不适及肌腱粘连等方面均低于B组。结论微型铜板固定近指间关节融合明显优于交叉克氏针固定。     

两种内固定方法治疗掌指骨骨折的疗效分析

目的比较采用克氏针内固定和微型钛板治疗掌、指骨骨折的临床效果。方法克氏针内固定治疗组42例45处骨折,术后随访1.5～12个月,平均8.4个月;微型钛板内固定治疗组28例36处骨折,术后随访2～12个月,平均9.2个月。以TAFS标准评价术后掌指关节及指间关节功能和术后感染及骨折愈合时间。结果克氏针固定组优良率为68.9%,微型钛板固定组优良率为80.6%,克氏针固定组与微型钛板组差异有显著意义(P<0.05)。克氏针组33处开放性骨折中5处发生感染;微型钛板组26处开放性骨折中3处发生感染。骨折愈合时间微型钛板组为7～12周,平均8.1周;克氏针组为6～12周,平均7.8周。结论从术后关节功能恢复的优良率、感染率以及骨折愈合时间相比,微型钛板组的疗效明显优于克氏针组,克氏针组骨折愈合时间较前者短。     

手部近关节部骨折的内固定方式选择

目的探讨手部关节内和关节周围骨折的治疗方法及疗效。方法A组对32例闭合和GustiloI型开放性手部关节内和关节周围骨折行切开复位AO微型钛板内固定术,B组12例多指GustiloⅡ型以上开放性手部关节周围骨折行清创后克氏针内固定加石膏托保护。两组随访观察2～10个月。结果A组骨折愈合时间平均4．1周,术后3～10个月解除内固定。无感染、骨折畸形愈合和内固定断裂。用TAF法评价手部功能,优良率为87．5％。B组骨折愈合时间平均为6．7周,4周左右解除克氏针,并发低毒性感染1例,成角畸形愈合1例,末端指坏死1例,TAF法评价优良率41．6％。结论AO微型钛板治疗手部关节内和关节周围骨折能够解剖复位关节面,坚强固定和利于早期功能活动,是治疗手部关节内和关节周围骨折的有效方法。对于软组织条件差的多指GustiloⅡ型以上开放性骨折患者,传统的石膏、克氏针固定仍作为一种简单有效的保指治疗方法。     

微型钛板与交叉克氏针治疗掌指骨骨折的疗效比较

目的 评价微型钛板和克氏针治疗掌、指骨骨折的疗效.方法 对59例80处掌、指骨骨折的患者,随机采用交叉克氏针固定(A组,26例37处)和微型钛板固定(B组,33例43处).结果 术后随访时间为3-12个月(平均7.6个月),所有骨折均达到骨性愈合.根据中华医学会手外科学会上肢部分功能评定试用标准评定:A组优13处,良11处,差13处,优良率为64.9%;B组优26处,良13处,差4处,优良率为90.7%;B组优于A组.感染率比较:A组9处(9/37,占24.3%),B组3处(3/43,占7.0%),B组低于A组.骨折平均愈合时间:A组为7.6周,B组4.6周.术后并发症:B组在关节僵硬、局部不适及肌腱粘连等方面均低于A组.结论 微型钛板治疗掌、指骨骨折在术后各项指标上均明显优于交叉克氏针固定.     

3种手术方法融合手指近侧指间关节的疗效比较

目的探讨应用交叉克氏针法、交叉克氏针加张力带法、微型钢板螺钉等3种手术方法对手指近侧指间关节融合的疗效分析比较。方法应用交叉克氏针固定、交叉克氏针加张力带固定、微型钢板螺钉固定等融合63例（73指）手指近指间关节。结果63例获得5～20个月的随访,按TAM功能评分标准评定疗效,克氏针固定组、克氏针张力带固定组、微型钢板螺钉组优良率分别62．50％、86．96％、88．89％。前者分别与后2组比较,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,后2组组间比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论从术后指间关节骨愈合时间、关节融合失败、创口感染率及手部功能等比较,交叉克氏针加张力带法、微型钢板螺钉固定组无差异,但均优于交叉克氏针固定组。     

微型钛板与交叉克氏针治疗掌指骨骨折的疗效比较

目的 评价微型钛板和克氏针治疗掌、指骨骨折的疗效.方法 对59例80处掌、指骨骨折的患者,随机采用交叉克氏针固定(A组,26例37处)和微型钛板固定(B组,33例43处).结果 术后随访时间为3-12个月(平均7.6个月),所有骨折均达到骨性愈合.根据中华医学会手外科学会上肢部分功能评定试用标准评定:A组优13处,良11处,差13处,优良率为64.9%;B组优26处,良13处,差4处,优良率为90.7%;B组优于A组.感染率比较:A组9处(9/37,占24.3%),B组3处(3/43,占7.0%),B组低于A组.骨折平均愈合时间:A组为7.6周,B组4.6周.术后并发症:B组在关节僵硬、局部不适及肌腱粘连等方面均低于A组.结论 微型钛板治疗掌、指骨骨折在术后各项指标上均明显优于交叉克氏针固定.     

AO微型钢板螺钉与克氏针治疗掌指骨骨折的比较研究

目的　比较采用AO微型钢板螺钉与克氏针固定治疗掌、指骨骨折的临床效果。方法　AO微型钢板螺钉内固定治疗组 2 0例 2 8处骨折 ,术后随访 2～ 12个月 ,平均 4.7个月。克氏针固定治疗组 3 0例 41处骨折 ,术后随访 1年以上。以TAFS标准评价术后掌指关节及指间关节功能和术后感染及骨折愈合时间。结果　微型钢板固定组优良率为 82 .1% (2 3 / 2 8) ,克氏针固定组优良率为 70 .7(2 9/ 4 1) ,两组差异有显著意义 (P <0 .0 5) ;微型钢板组 19处开放性骨折中 3处发生感染 ,克氏针组 2 9处开放性骨折中 5处发生感染。骨折愈合时间微型钢板组为 4～ 6周 ,平均 4.8周 ;克氏针组为 6～ 9周 ,平均 7.8周 ,2例发生骨不连。结论　从术后关节功能恢复的优良率、感染率以及骨折愈合时间相比 ,AO微型钢板组的疗效明显优于克氏针组     

微型钛板螺钉融合手指近指间关节的临床研究

目的 探讨应用微型钛板螺钉融合手指近指间关节的手术疗效.方法 采用塑形后的微型钛板螺钉对29例(44指)男性患者的手指近指间关节进行融合,手术均采用背侧入路.结果 术后29例均获得4～7个月的随访,伤口无感染及皮肤坏死,融合关节临床愈合时间为6～8周,X线片骨性愈合时间为2～3个月,无延迟愈合、骨不连或畸形愈合.结论 本术式操作简单,掌握容易;缩短骨性愈合时间;大大降低骨不连的发生率、畸形愈合率、针道感染及骨髓炎的发病率.     

微型钛板螺钉融合手指近指间关节的临床研究

目的 探讨应用微型钛板螺钉融合手指近指间关节的手术疗效.方法 采用塑形后的微型钛板螺钉对29例(44指)男性患者的手指近指间关节进行融合,手术均采用背侧入路.结果 术后29例均获得4～7个月的随访,伤口无感染及皮肤坏死,融合关节临床愈合时间为6～8周,X线片骨性愈合时间为2～3个月,无延迟愈合、骨不连或畸形愈合.结论 本术式操作简单,掌握容易;缩短骨性愈合时间;大大降低骨不连的发生率、畸形愈合率、针道感染及骨髓炎的发病率.     

微型钢板与交叉克氏针治疗掌指骨骨折的疗效比较

目的：探讨微型钢板与克氏针内固定治疗掌指骨骨折疗效。方法：对55例68处骨折分为微型钢板内固定组（33例43处）及交叉克氏针组（22例25处）治疗，同时比较两种方法的治疗结果。结果：55例随访3～12个月（平均8．9个月），68处均愈合。按TAFS评分：微型钢板内固定组优良率为90．7％，交叉克氏针组优良率为68％。两组的TAFS功能评分结果差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。平均骨折愈合时间：微型钢板内固定组为4．6周，交叉克氏针组为7．6周，两者结果差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。感染率：微型钢板内固定组为7．0％，交叉克氏针组为24％，两者结果差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：微型钢板内固定治疗掌指骨骨折在术后关节功能恢复情况、骨折愈合时间、术后感染情况都明显优于交叉克氏针内固定。     

Method of fracture fixation using external fixation devices

An improvement of the results of treatment can be reached, beside respecting the indication of external fixateurs, with correct tactics of the treatment. Because of the disadvantages of the fixateur externe, we strive to restrict their use, to the time by all means necessary, and if possible to use other methods of fixation. This is motivated especially by the effect on fracture healing and the hindering of the movements and activity of the patient.     

Biological fixation of subtrochanteric fractures by external fixation

Fifty-one subtrochanteric fractures have been stabilized by external fixation over the last 9 years. Union occurred in all types of fractures, usually within 6 months. Soft tissue interposition led to non-union in three patients. Refracture in one patient and significant limb-length discrepancy in two patients was seen. The technique is versatile, easily reproducible and ‘biological’. Protected weight-bearing is not necessary after removal.     

Prediction of fixation failure after sliding hip screw fixation

Cut-out of the lag screw is the commonest cause of fixation failure after sliding hip screw fixation of extracapsular hip fracture. A number of technical aspects of surgery have been used to asses the risk of cut-out. This study was to determine which of these indicators was the most reliable predictor of cut-out. The anterior-posterior and lateral post-operative radiographs of 23 cases of cut-out were compared with those of 77 cases of uneventful fracture healing. The tip-apex distance with correction for magnification was found to show the most significant difference between patients with cut-out against those without (P = 0.001), followed by the lag screw position on the lateral radiographs (P = 0.0095 and 0.014), reduction of the fracture on the anterior-posterior radiograph (P = 0.011 and 0.016) and the uncorrected tip-apex distance (P = 0.019). We recommend that for audit and research purposes the corrected tip-apex distance, fracture reduction and implant positioning methods should be used. For routine clinical practice, the uncorrected tip to apex distance, which is sum of the distance from the tip of the lag screw to the apex of the femoral head on anterior-posterior and lateral radiograph, and fracture reduction angle on the anterior-posterior radiograph are recommended.     

Trans-sacral fixation for failed posterior fixation of the pelvic ring

Introduction: In the treatment of certain pelvic ring pathologies (non-unions and failure of ilio-sacral screw fixation) trans-sacral fixation (i.e. fixation from iliac wing to the other traversing the body of S1) may be necessary. The purpose of our study was to describe our early experience and describe the surgical technique. Materials and methods: Seven cases of trans-sacral fixation were identified with a mean patient age of 49-years-old with four females and three males. The diagnosis at the time of trans-sacral fixation was failure of posterior ring fixation in four (three of which had vertical sacral fractures), mal-position of iliosacral (IS) screw in one, failure of fusion of sacroiliac (SI) joint in two. All these cases were augmented with a 4.5 mm reconstruction plate placed in tension posteriorly. Results: At average follow up of 39 months (range 24–75), all patients achieved union. There were no neurological or vascular complications. Two patients required reoperations prior to union. Our current use for this technique is with a 8.0 mm screw (16 mm thread). Conclusions: Initial experience with trans-sacral fixation has proven to be very effective technique to solve the most difficult problems in posterior pelvic ring fixation. We reserve its use to the following indications: nonunion/malunion of the pelvic ring, and sacral fractures.     

Biologic fixation

One of the major problems of implant surgery is the failure of the bone-cement interface. Because of such failures, observed with increasing frequency with the passage of time, biologic fixation of total joint implants by means of bone ingrowth has become the focus of considerable interest among orthopedic surgeons. Actual bone ingrowth has been demonstrated into porous metals, resulting in a strong interface between metal and bone. Many clinical trials of biologic fixation, including endoprostheses and total hip, shoulder, and knee prostheses, are being conducted. The brief experience of such fixation in humans supports the hypothesis that bone ingrowth will provide stable fixation for load-bearing prostheses. Many questions remain to be answered about biologic fixation and the burden that falls upon the clinical scientist to identify the proper niche for this process in the care of the musculoskeletal patient.