股骨近端空心锁定板内固定治疗股骨颈骨折临床疗效观察

目的：：研究股骨近端空心锁定板内固定治疗股骨颈骨折的临床效果。方法：对2008年2月至2010年4月我院入院治疗的108例股骨颈骨折患者进行了研究，随机分为两组，对照组给与空心钉进行治疗，观察组采用股骨近端空心锁定板内固定治疗，比较两组治疗方案的手术时间、出血量、住院时间以及下床时间，比较两组治疗方案的手术并发症发生率，并比较两组患者三年期临床疗效。结果：观察组患者手术出血量明显少于对照组，手术时间、住院时间以及下床时间明显短于对照组，两组比较差异明显，有统计学意义( P<0.05)；两组患者手术并发症均以疼痛、骨不连以及感染为主，其中观察组上述并发症的发生率为13.0％，明显低于对照组33.3％，两组比较差异有统计学意义( P<0.05)；观察组患者三年临床总有效率为79.6％，对照组患者三年期临床总有效率为51.9％，两组比较差异明显，有统计学意义( P<0.05)。结论：股骨近端空心锁定板内固定治疗股骨颈骨折临床效果显著，可以明显缩短手术时间以及住院时间，降低手术并发症，并且三年临床总有效率更高，值得临床推广应用。     

单侧外固定治疗重度Pilon骨折的临床疗效探究

目的探讨单侧外固定治疗重度Pilon骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2017年6月-2018年12月南京中大医院江北院区骨科收治的重度Pilon骨折患者100例,男性54例,女性46例;年龄18~65岁,平均35.5岁;Ruedi-AllgowerⅡ型39例,Ⅲ型61例。按照不同固定方法分为常规固定组和单侧外固定组,各50例,比较两组患者住院时间、完全负重下地时间、骨折愈合时间,评价治疗前及治疗后3个月踝关节活动度、踝关节功能恢复情况、疼痛程度,并统计患者的治疗效果及并发症发生情况。结果单侧外固定组住院时间、完全负重下地时间、骨折愈合时间分别为(16.50±1.50)d、(132.56±10.25)d、(14.16±0.69)周,均短于常规固定组(19.25±2.35)d、(198.65±16.58)d、(17.58±1.50)周(t/P=6.975/0.001、23.970/0.001、14.650/0.001)。治疗后3个月,单侧外固定组踝关节Mazur评分为(85.67±6.59)分,显著高于常规固定组(62.78±3.45)分,VAS评分为(2.23±0.36)分,低于常规固定组(4.59±0.89)分(t/P=21.760/0.001、17.380/0.001);单侧外固定组患者踝关节活动度分别为(17.29±0.16)°、(28.36±1.23)°、(19.68±0.16)°、(16.89±2.12)°,均高于常规固定组(10.62±1.25)°、(21.57±2.58)°、(14.36±1.62)°、(14.25±0.57)°(t/P=37.430/0.001、16.800/0.001、23.110/0.001、8.503/0.001)。单侧外固定组治疗优良率为90.00%,显著高于常规固定组74.00%(χ^2/P=4.336/0.037)。单侧外固定组总并发症发生率为4.00%,显著低于常规固定组的18.00%(χ^2/P=5.005/0.025)。结论单侧外固定支架治疗重度Pilon骨折可有效减轻患者疼痛症状,提高患者踝关节活动度,恢复患者功能,治疗效果显著,安全性较高。     

解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨治疗肱骨近端骨折疗效的Meta分析

文题释义：肱骨近端骨折：肱骨近端包括肱骨头及大结节、小结节，中老年人骨质疏松及低能量损伤可导致肱骨近端骨折。 同种异体腓骨：取自于人体异体，经过加工处理，去除其免疫原性，保留其骨性结构，可用于移植修复骨缺损，起到支撑作用。 背景：肱骨近端骨折是临床常见骨折，但对肱骨近端内侧柱缺乏支撑的骨折目前仍是治疗难点，并发症常见，失败率较高。 目的：比较解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨与单纯解剖锁定钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折的疗效。 方法：使用计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Google Scholar、中国知网、万方、维普数据库，检索时间均从建库到2020年2月。检索国内外关于对比研究解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨与单纯解剖锁定钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折疗效的文献。2名研究员根据纳入和排除标准分别独立筛选文献，提取数据，评估文献中的偏倚风险。纳入12篇相关文献使用RevMan 5.2软件将以下指标进行Meta分析，包括影像学数据、功能评分和并发症。结果与结论：①通过文献检索、根据纳入和排除标准，12篇文献纳入研究，其中11篇为回顾性队列研究，1篇为随机对照研究；纳入研究文献质量高，但GRADE证据质量级别较低。②共纳入958例患者，其中解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨组411例，单纯解剖锁定钢板组547例；③Meta分析结果显示，解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨组术后1年肱骨头高度差值(MD=-2.40，95%CI：-2.49至-2.31)、颈干角差值(MD= -6.14，95%CI：-6.62至-5.67)、目测类比评分(MD=-0.22，95%CI：-0.35至-0.08)、肩关节功能评分(MD=4.12，95%CI：2.18-6.06)，上肢伤残评分(MD=-10.32，95%CI：-13.44至-7.19)、术后2年的目测类比评分(MD=-0.37，95%CI：-0.55至-0.19)、肩关节功能评分(MD=5.07，95%CI：2.86-7.27)、总体并发症(OR=0.31，95%CI：0.20-0.48)及肱骨头螺钉切出(OR=0.25，95%CI：0.11-0.55)均明显优于单纯解剖锁定钢板组(P < 0.05)，肱骨头坏死(OR=0.94，95%CI：0.47-1.88)，两组间差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)；④因此，较弱的证据提示，肱骨近端解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨治疗肱骨近端骨折的短期疗效优于解剖锁定钢板，可减少并发症的发生，促进功能恢复。ORCID: 0000-0002-8486-3932(阳运康) 中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程     

Analysis of jump load during a volleyball season in terms of player role

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to analyze the jump load performed by top-level volleyball players during an entire training season in terms of the player role, training period, type of daily training, and quality of opposition in the subsequent match.DesignLongitudinal panel observational study.MethodsThe total number of jumps performed by players was recorded through 174 training days distributed in 32 weeks during the 2016/2017 season (pre-season, 5 weeks; in-season, 27 weeks). The players role were classified as middle-blocker, outside-hitter, opposite and setter (the libero was omitted). A generalized mixed linear model was performed (with Bonferroni post hoc test at p < 0.05) to assess the effect of training variables and the repeated-measures data of players’ jumps along various training days. Additionally, the effect sizes at 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare the jump load between players’ role and training variables.ResultsThe results showed a significant and moderate higher amount of jumps performed by middle-blockers regardless the type of macro- or micro-cycle, the micro-cycle phase, the type of training and the quality of match opposition. Contrarily, the setter performs the least jump load in all variables analyzed. Only the players’ role, macro-cycle and micro-cycle phase had significant effects on the player's jump load variation along the season.ConclusionsThis information could be useful to guide the monitoring and preparation process for coaches and physical trainers. These values allow differentiating between players’ role and could be used as references values in order to avoid injuries whereas performance increase along the season.     

Biodegradable versus titanium osteosynthesis in maxillofacial traumatology: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Titanium osteosynthesis is currently the fixation system of choice in maxillofacial traumatology. Biodegradable osteosynthesis systems have the ability to degrade in the human body. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review, with meta- and trial sequential analyses, to assess the efficacy and morbidity of biodegradable versus titanium osteosynthesis after maxillofacial trauma. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective controlled studies. Five time periods were studied: perioperative, short-term (0–4 weeks), intermediate (6–12 weeks), long-term (>12 weeks), and overall follow-up. After screening 3542 records, 24 were included. All had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to the nature of the interventions. Meta-analysis showed no differences in efficacy or morbidity between biodegradable and titanium osteosynthesis. The risk of perioperative screw breakage was significantly higher (risk ratio 17.13, 95% confidence interval 2.19–34.18) and the symptomatic plate removal rate lower in the biodegradable group (risk ratio 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.02–0.57), which was confirmed by the trial sequential analysis. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Based on the narrative review and meta-analyses, current evidence shows that biodegradable osteosynthesis is a viable alternative to titanium osteosynthesis when applied in the treatment of maxillofacial trauma, with similar efficacy but significantly lower symptomatic plate removal rates. Perioperative screw breakage occurred significantly more often in the biodegradable group compared to the titanium group.     

品管圈活动在喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷治疗小儿输液外渗中的应用效果分析

目的探讨品管圈活动在喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷治疗小儿输液外渗中的应用效果。方法选取我院2016年8月至2018年12月收治的输液外渗患儿100例,随机分为两组各50例。对照组给予50%硫酸镁湿敷治疗与常规护理,干预组采用喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷,进行品管圈活动。对比两组的临床疗效、损伤痊愈时间和完全消肿时间。结果干预组的总有效率为90.00%,高于对照组的74.00%(P <0.05)。干预组的损伤痊愈时间和完全消肿时间短于对照组(P <0.05)。结论品管圈活动在喜疗妥联合新鲜马铃薯外敷治疗小儿输液外渗中的效果较好,可缩短临床症状消失时间,加快康复进程。     

中医药外治疗法治疗混合痔术后并发症临床研究概况

混合痔在其多样化的治疗方案中通过手术治疗是最主要的方法,但因肛管解剖结构和生理功能的特殊性、复杂性,且开放的术口会因排便刺激而损伤局部组织,造成肛门部水肿、疼痛、创面延期愈合等并发症出现,降低患者的生活质量并带来极大的身心痛苦。西医治疗主要是抗感染、止痛、止血等对症处理为主; 而中医治疗是以辨证论治为基础,达到消肿止痛、活血化瘀、抗炎促愈的目的,疗效稳定,尤其是中医外治疗法通过中药熏洗坐浴、灌肠塞肛及针灸敷药等方式直接作用于切口患处,减少胃肠道刺激,发挥多靶点、多环节、多层次的综合调控作用而增加疗效,其成本低、易操作、简便易行,能促进水肿消退、缓解疼痛、减少出血及创面早日愈合。现就混合痔术后并发症的中医药外治疗法进行综述如下。     

不同手术方法治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折临床疗效观察

目的探讨不同手术方法治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折临床疗效。方法选择2016年1月—2018年12月84例复杂胫骨平台骨折患者,随机分组。单侧锁定钢板内固定组选择单侧锁定钢板内固定手术,双侧切口双侧解剖钢板内固定组选择双侧切口双侧解剖钢板内固定。分析手术操作时间、手术失血、平均住院天数以及复杂胫骨平台骨折愈合时间;治疗前后患者视觉模拟评分和Rasmussen膝关节功能评分;膝关节僵硬发生率。结果双侧切口双侧解剖钢板内固定组视觉模拟评分和Rasmussen膝关节功能评分、手术操作时间、手术失血、平均住院天数以及复杂胫骨平台骨折愈合时间、膝关节僵硬发生率和单侧锁定钢板内固定组比较有优势,P<0.05。结论复杂胫骨平台骨折患者实施双侧切口双侧解剖钢板内固定可获得较好效果。     

F形空心钉与传统3枚平行钉治疗Pauwels Ⅲ型股骨颈骨折的疗效比较

目的:分析比较"F"形空心钉与传统倒三角3枚平行螺钉内固定治疗青壮年Pauwels Ⅲ型股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。方法：2017年1月至2020年1月收治Pauwels Ⅲ型股骨颈骨折患者38例，根据置入钉方式的不同将其分为两组，其中A组18例，采用"F"形空心钉固定，男12例，女6例，年龄37~55岁，受伤至手术时间1~3 d。B组20例，采用传统倒三角3枚平行拉力螺钉固定，男12例，女8例，年龄35~55岁，受伤至手术时间为1~3 d。比较两组患者骨折不愈合，股骨头坏死，股骨颈短缩，空心螺钉退出情况，髋关节功能Harris评分，疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale，VAS）。结果：所有患者获得随访，时间为15~31个月。两组患者在骨折不愈合，股骨颈短缩，股骨头坏死方面差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；两组患者在螺钉退出方面差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两组患者术后12个月时髋关节Harris评分及VAS评分差异均无统计学差异（P>0.05）。结论："F"形与传统倒三角3枚平行空心钉内固定治疗青壮年Pauwels Ⅲ型股骨颈骨折中短期疗效相似，但"F"形空心钉退钉率较低。     

A comparison of double single suture-button fixation,suture-button fixation,and screw fixation for ankle syndesmosis injury: A retrospective cohort study

Different methods have been used throughout the years for syndesmotic injury but there is no consensus on the ideal treatment. Some methods are expensive and some have more complications. The aim of this study is to compare single suture endobutton with double suture endobutton and screw fixation for syndesmotic injury.Sixty nine patients with syndesmotic injury with fibular fractures whom were treated with a single interosseous suture endobutton system (ZipTight^TM, Zimmer Biomet), a double interosseous suture endobutton system (ZipTight^TM, Zimmer Biomet) and 1 syndesmotic screw (TST, Istanbul, Turkey) were included in this study. Functional and radiological results from patient records between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively evaluated.Twenty patients were treated with the double interosseous suture endobutton, 23 were treated with the single interosseous suture endobutton, and 26 were treated with traditional AO screw fixation. Three patients from the screw fixation group (11.5%) required revision surgery (P < .05). All the radiologic and clinical outcomes were statistical similar in all 3 groups.Our findings showed that the interosseous suture endobutton system is at least as safe as the screw fixation technique for treatment of syndesmosis joint injuries and can be used as an alternative to the screw method. The interosseous suture endobutton system eliminates the need for a second surgery to remove the hardware, which minimizes the probability of re-diastasis. Since our results showed no statistical difference between single and double interosseous suture endobutton systems, the less costly single endobutton system may be the better alternative.