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。     

基于正交试验的肾造瘘管固定方案研究

目的 探讨基于正交试验的肾造瘘管不同固定方案的比较效果。方法 将14Fr硅胶肾造瘘管固定在聚乙烯展板和拉力显示器上，以固定材料、固定方法、面积为3个影响因素，每个因素3个水平，每组进行3次试验再求平均值作为最后拉力值F，共进行9个固定方案共27次试验。利用L9（33）正交试验矩阵研究不同材料（医用橡皮膏、医用透气胶带、医用无纺布胶带）、固定方法（交叉固定法、“工”字固定法和改良“工”字固定法）及面积(16 cm2、24 cm2、32 cm2）对肾造瘘管固定强度的影响。结果 正交试验所选的3种影响因素中，对拉力值影响显著性排序为：材料＞方法＞面积；3种固定材料中，医用橡皮膏固定强度最大。结论 肾造瘘管固定方案中，最佳固定组合为以医用橡皮膏结合改良“工”字法固定，可为临床管道固定方案的选择提供参考。     

Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.