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。     

轴向载荷分担比指导外固定器动力化的临床应用

目的:探讨轴向载荷分担比用于胫腓骨骨干骨折术后指导外固定器轴向动力化促进骨折愈合的有效性。方法:选取外固定器治疗的胫腓骨骨干骨折患者100例,随机分为观察组50例,对照组50例。观察组在轴向载荷分担比指导下行外固定器轴向动力化治疗,对照组未行动力化,随访比较两组的治疗效果。结果:所有患者均获随访,随访时间4～12个月,平均6.5个月,治疗期间所有患者均未出现外固定针断裂、松动及再骨折等并发症,观察组1例骨搬移患者轴向载荷分担比5%,X线片显示骨折断端有连续性骨痂通过,拆除外固定器连接杆后发生移位,恢复原数值行轴向加压再动力化,现已愈合。观察组除外1例骨搬移患者,其余49例患者外固定器固定时间为[(24.4±4.7)周],骨折临床愈合时间为[(22.4±4.7)周],与对照组50例患者外固定器固定时间[(29.3±5.6)周],骨折临床愈合时间[(27.3±5.6)周]比较,显著减少(P0.05)。结论:外固定器轴向载荷分担比指导胫腓骨骨干骨折外固定术后轴向动力化可以加速骨折愈合,但不适合骨搬移截骨端已硬化患者。     

不同剂量骨水泥PKP联合雌激素对绝经后女性骨质疏松性腰椎体压缩性骨折患者的影响

目的探讨不同剂量骨水泥PKP联合雌激素对绝经后女性骨质疏松性腰椎体压缩性骨折患者的影响。方法选取2015年1月至2018年6月我院收治的120例老年女性骨质疏松性腰椎体压缩性骨折患者为研究对象,按行PKP手术治疗时骨水泥注入的剂量不同分为三组(A组2-4 mL、B组4-5 mL、C组5-6 mL),所有患者均随访1年,比较术后三组患者VAS评分、ODI评分、伤椎椎体前缘高度、椎体中部高度及并发症的发生率。结果三组患者相比,治疗前VAS评分、ODI评分组间比较差异无显著性(P0.05);术后3天及1年后随访时,三组患者各项指标均较治疗前显著改善,组内比较差异具有显著性(P0.05),组间比较差异无显著性(P0.05);治疗前伤椎椎体前缘高度及椎体中部高度组间比较差异无显著性(P0.05);术后3天及1年后随访时,三组患者治疗后椎体前缘、中间高度均较术前明显增加(P0.05),组间比较椎体前缘高度:C组B组A组,椎体中间高度:C组B组A组,且组间比较有统计学差异(P0.05); A组患者并发症的发生率(12.5%)明显低于B组(30.0%)、C组(41.0%),有统计学差异(P0.05)。结论 PKP术中注入小剂量骨水泥(2-4 mL)对于治疗老年女性OVCFs具有良好的治疗效果及较高的安全性。     

Isolated Anisocoria as a Presenting Stroke Code Symptom is Unlikely to Result in Alteplase Administration

Background

Acute stroke codes may be activated for anisocoria, but how often these codes lead to a final stroke diagnosis or alteplase treatment is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency of anisocoria in stroke codes that ultimately resulted in alteplase administration.

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.