切开复位内固定治疗Lisfranc关节损伤的体会

目的探讨切开复位内固定治疗Lisfranc关节损伤的中短期疗效。方法回顾性分析自2010-01—2013-12诊治的15例Lisfranc关节损伤,分别采用切开复位克氏针、空心钉及背侧钢板内固定,根据美国足踝骨科协会(AOFAS)评分标准对患足术后功能进行评价。结果所有患者均获得随访12~24个月,平均18个月。骨折均达到一期愈合,无皮肤坏死、伤口感染、内固定物断裂、复位丢失等并发症。所有患者均达到解剖复位,根据AOFAS评分标准,平均得分85分,优5例,良9例,可1例。结论切开复位内固定治疗Lisfranc关节损伤可获得良好的中短期疗效满意,能有效恢复患足功能,减少致残率。     

切开复位克氏针内固定治疗跖跗关节损伤

2009年5月～2015年7月,我科采用切开复位克氏针内固定治疗21 例跖跗关节损伤患者,疗效满意,报道如下. 1 材料与方法 1. 1 病例资料 本组21 例,男16 例,女5例,年龄19～52岁.行X线、CT检查均符合跖跗关节损伤诊断标准.受伤至入院时间为1. 5～8. 5 h.急诊手术以开放损伤为主,择期手术选择...     

Lisfranc损伤切开复位内固定与一期部分跖跗关节融合术临床疗效的Meta分析

目的通过Meta分析,比较Lisfranc损伤切开复位内固定术(ORIF)与一期部分跖跗关节融合术的临床疗效。方法通过检索中英文数据库,收集全部对Lisfranc损伤进行ORIF及一期部分跖跗关节融合术进行比较的临床研究,并对其进行质量评价及Meta分析。评价指标:功能评分、并发症、二次翻修手术、内固定物取出术、患者满意率。结果共纳入4篇文献,其中2篇前瞻性随机对照研究,2篇回顾性队列研究。功能评分因缺乏统一评分系统未能进行合并。ORIF组与关节融合组在并发症方面差异没有统计学意义[RR=0.85,95%CI(0.06,11.25),P=0.90]。ORIF组与关节融合组在二次翻修手术方面差异没有统计学意义[RR=0.42,95%CI(0.14,1.29),P=0.13]。关节融合组在内固定物取出术方面比较明显优于ORIF组[RR=0.04,95%CI(0.01,0.12),P0.000 01]。关节融合组患者满意率较ORIF组高,差异有统计学意义[RR=4.69,95%CI(1.80,12.22),P=0.002]。结论 Lisfranc损伤一期行关节融合术在术后并发症、二次翻修手术方面与切开复位内固定术无明显差异,但在患者满意率及内固定取出方面更有优势。     

切开复位内固定治疗Pilon骨折预后影响因素分析

目的：探讨切开复位内固定治疗 Pilon 骨折临床疗效影响因素。方法对60例切开复位内固定治疗Pilon 骨折患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,并对影响手术疗效的相关因素进行分析。结果合并深部感染和创伤性关节炎的患者骨折分型越高、骨折复位情况越差,预后越差（P ＜0.01）。结论影响切开复位内固定治疗 Pilon 骨折预后的影响因素包括骨折分型、骨折复位、合并深部感染和创伤性关节炎。     

Efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation with a miniplate and hollow screw in the treatment of Lisfranc injury

Purpose: To investigate efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation with the miniplate and hollow screw in the treatment of Lisfranc injury.Methods: Ten cases of Lisfranc injury treated by open reduction, miniplate and hollow screw in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. There were 6 males and 4 females with age ranging from 25 to 45 years (mean 32 years). Among them, one case was classified as Type A, six Type B and three Type C. Injury mechanism included road traffic accidents (3 cases), fall from height (5 cases) and hit by heavy object (2 cases). All injuries were closed without cerebral trauma or other complicated injuries. The time interval between injury and operation was 6e10 days (average 6.6 days). Postoperatively, the foot function was assessed using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Scales. Healing time and complications were observed.Results: All patients were followed up for 18e24 months (average 20 months). Anatomic reduction was achieved in all patients on images. There was statistical significance between preoperative score (7.89 ± 0.34) and score at postoperative 8 weeks (0.67 ± 0.13). According to the AOFAS score, 5 cases were defined as excellent, 3 cases as good and 2 cases as fair. During follow-up, there was no wound infection or complications except for osteoarthritis in 2 cases. Healing time ranged from 3 to 6 months with anaverage of 3.6 months.Conclusion: Anatomical reduction of Lisfranc injury can be achieved by open reduction and internal fixation with the miniplate and hollow screw. Normal structure of Lisfranc joint is regained to a great extent; injured ligaments were also repaired. Therefore, this method offers excellent curative effect and can avoid postoperative complications and improve the patients'' quality of life.     

切开复位内固定治疗Lisfranc关节损伤

目的探讨切开复位内固定治疗Lisfranc关节损伤的临床疗效。方法应用切开复位技术,根据骨折类型不同,分别选用螺钉、克氏针及微型钢板作内固定材料,对27例Lisfranc关节损伤患者进行治疗。结果术后患者均未发生感染及骨筋膜室综合征。27例均获随访,时间9～12个月。根据美国足踝外科协会AO-FAS评分标准评估疗效:优13例,良11例,可3例,优良率为88.9%。结论切开复位内固定治疗Lisfranc关节损伤,可以获得良好的临床效果。     

Cost comparison and complication rate of Lisfranc injuries treated with open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis

BackgroundControversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown.MethodsA national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007 to 2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with lisfranc injuries then progressed to either nonoperative treatment, ORIF, or primary arthrodesis. Associated treatment costs were determined along with complication rate and hardware removal rate.Results2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent nonoperative management, 670 underwent ORIF, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5005.82) than for ORIF ($3961.97,P = 0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for ORIF and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P = 0.04). Rates of hardware removal were 43.6% (292/670) for ORIF and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the ORIF group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9505.12.DiscussionPrimary arthrodesis is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than ORIF. Open reduction and internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with ORIF.Level of evidence:Level III Retrospective Cohort Study.     

Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed reduction and percutaneous fixation in the treatment of Bennett fractures: A systematic review

PurposeOpen reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of Bennett fractures is increasingly preferred over closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRIF) in an attempt to prevent the development of post-traumatic arthrosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether the preference for ORIF is justified based on the available literature regarding functional outcome and complications after surgery.MethodsA systematic review was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of science, and Google scholar. Duplicates were removed and title and abstract were screened after which full text articles were analysed. The reference lists of selected articles were screened for additional relevant studies. Study characteristics were recorded and methodological qualities were assessed after which data was extracted from the included articles. The Eaton-Littler score for post-traumatic arthrosis (primary outcome) on follow-up X-rays was used as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were Grip strength, Pinch strength, persistent pain, fixation failure, functional impairment, infection and surgery time.ResultsTen studies were included; three retrospective comparative studies and seven retrospective case series. Of the 215 patients in these studies, 138 had been treated using an open technique and 77 by a closed percutaneous technique. The pooled rate of post-traumatic arthrosis was 57.5% (26.6–85.5) in the ORIF group versus 26.1% (3.9–59.0) in the CRIF group. Mean surgical operation time was 71.9 min for ORIF and 30.2 min for percutaneous patients. Fixation failure was significantly more often seen in the ORIF patients, 8.2% (0.7–22.8) vs. 2.9% (0.8–9.1), Risk Ratio 1.132 (0.01–176.745); p = 0.048. Infection was only seen in 5 CRIF patients. Persistent pain was seen in 32.9% (0.6–83.1) in ORIF patients versus 22.3% (8.1–41.1) in the CRIF patients. The pooled means Grip strength was 48.3 kg (95% CI; 39.7–56.9) versus 43.4 kg (95% CI; 22.9–63.8) for ORIF and CRPF, respectively. Functional impairment was similar between the two groups, 1.4% (0.1–4.4) vs 1.8% (0.1–5.7) respectively.ConclusionThe analysed data do not confirm ORIF to prevent post-traumatic arthrosis, secondly more fixation failure and pain was seen in the ORIF group. The pooled data show percutaneous fixation to be preferable over ORIF in the surgical treatment of Bennett fractures.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of acute lisfranc injuries: Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis

BackgroundInjuries to the Lisfranc complex, although relatively rare carry a high morbidity and are often associated with other injuries. Despite a number published studies to determine the best operative management, there is an ongoing debate to whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) produces the best outcomes for patients. There have been further studies published in the last few years that have not been assessed as part of the wider literature and therefore we wished to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with inclusion of outcomes not assessed in the previous studies.MethodsWe performed a structured search for retrospective and prospective comparative papers and identified 8 relevant articles (2 RCT studies and 6 non-RCT studies) that compared the outcomes of ORIF versus PA; these studies included a total of 547 patients. Each of the studies was assessed for suitability and quality before inclusion. We performed a statistical analysis of the aggregated results as part of the review.ResultsWe found no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of ORIF versus PA in terms of return to work or activity (Odds Ratio 0.80 (CI 95%, 0.32–2.02, P = 0.64)) and satisfaction rates (Odds Ratio 0.15 (CI 95%, 0.01–.00, P = 0.25)). Patients undergoing ORIF have a higher risk of undergoing further surgery to remove the metalwork (Odds Ration 13.13 (CI 95%, 7.65–22.54, P < 0.00001)) or to undergo secondary fusion, but, the overall complication rates appear to be equivalent in both groups (risk difference 0.03 (CI 95%, –0.15–0.21, P = 0.76)).ConclusionsAlthough there were no significant differences in the functional outcomes, the overall power of the studies is low. The rates of metalwork removal and secondary fusion were higher in the ORIF group and this risk should be presented to the patient when counselling them for any procedure. We noted that there is a high level of heterogeneity in the type of injuries and measured outcomes included in each study and, therefore, further trials are needed to determine the best treatment across the spectrum of Lisfranc complex injuries.     

一期内固定治疗C型Lisfranc骨折脱位疗效分析

目的研究分析微型钢板结合空心钉辅助克氏针一期内固定治疗24例MyersonC型lisfranc骨折脱位患者的中短期疗效。方法2006年6月至2011年9月,采用微型钢板结合空心钉辅助克氏针一期内固定治疗24例MyersonC型Lisfranc骨折脱位患者（20-50岁,平均29．24±5．32岁）,其中（C1型16例,C2型8例。根据美国足踝骨科协会（AOFAS）踝后足评分和疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）评价治疗效果。结果术后24例均获10-49个月（平均11．32±7．32个月）随访。手术时间平均80．3±11．2min。X线片检查显示24足均获解剖复位,足弓形态恢复正常。所有骨折皆一期愈合,无再次骨折脱位情况发生。术后2例出现浅表感染,2例出现皮缘坏死,2例出现足拇趾外翻畸形,5例出现负重及行走痛（2例较轻,3例口服消炎止痛药物可明显缓解,均不影响生活）。末次随访时AOFAS评分为68-98分,平均81．35±3．24分;C1、C2型评分差异无统计学意义（P=0．751）。VAS评分为0～6分,平均3．6±0．5分。结果优13例,良8例,一般2例,差1例,优良率为87．5％。结论采用微型钢板结合空心钉辅助克氏针内固定治疗C型Lisfranc骨折脱位,可达到一期解剖复位固定效果。尽管仍存在一些并发症,但对症处理效果满意,整体疗效良好。     

关节镜辅助经皮内固定和切开复位内固定治疗Schatzker Ⅱ、Ⅲ型胫骨平台骨折的比较研究

目的比较关节镜辅助经皮内固定和切开复位内固定治疗SchatzkerⅡ、Ⅲ型胫骨平台骨折的疗效。方法 2006年8月-2010年4月,收治58例SchatzkerⅡ、Ⅲ型胫骨平台闭合骨折患者,根据治疗方法不同随机分为两组,其中38例采用关节镜辅助经皮内固定治疗(关节镜组),20例采用切开复位内固定治疗(对照组)。两组患者性别、年龄、病程、骨折类型、合并症比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。记录两组手术时间、切口长度、骨折愈合时间、术后并发症发生情况;按美国特种外科医院(HSS)评分标准行膝关节功能评分,测量关节活动度。结果术后两组患者切口均Ⅰ期愈合。关节镜组手术时间较对照组长,切口较对照组短,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者均获12～14个月随访。术后6个月关节镜组膝关节HSS评分优于对照组,关节活动度大于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。X线片检查示两组骨折均达骨性愈合,关节镜组愈合时间较对照组短,但差异无统计学意义(t=2.14,P=0.41)。关节镜组2例(5.3%)术后1周出现关节晨僵;对照组6例(30.0%)术后1周出现关节疼痛,其中3例伴关节僵直;均经对症处理后症状缓解。两组并发症发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.743,P=0.016)。结论关节镜辅助经皮内固定治疗SchatzkerⅡ、Ⅲ型胫骨平台骨折与切开复位内固定相比,具有术后功能恢复快、并发症少等优点。     

Safety of immediate open reduction and internal fixation of geriatric open fractures of the distal radius

Introduction and aim

There is a paucity of literature regarding outcomes of open fractures of the distal radius. No study has detailed this injury or treatment strategy in the geriatric population. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of immediate open reduction and internal fixation of geriatric open fractures of the distal radius.

Methods

A total of 21 geriatric patients with open fractures of the distal radius treated with a single definitive procedure were identified from a prospectively collected database. We reviewed patient demographics, injury characteristics and treatment specifics. Our primary outcome was surgical-site infection defined by need for antibiotics or repeat surgery. Our secondary outcome was need for other re-operation. Patients were contacted and functional scores obtained.

Results

Patients were followed up for an average of 26 months. One deep infection and one nonunion occurred, and they required repeat surgery. Four minor operative complications occurred, including stiffness requiring manipulation and prominent fixation devices requiring removal. Patients maintained an average wrist flexion–extension arc of 89° and pronation–supination arc of 137°. The average QuickDASH (shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire) score was 17.4, indicating minimal disability of the upper extremity.

Conclusions

Immediate open reduction and internal fixation of geriatric open fractures of the distal radius yields adequate functional results with low risk of major complications.     

踝关节骨折切开复位内固定术后踝关节镜手术的临床结果

目的研究踝关节骨折切开复位内固定(ORIF)手术后再次踝关节镜的疗效。 方法回顾性分析2011年1月至2014年12月在解放军第81集团军医院骨科因踝关节骨折ORIF手术后各种原因行踝关节镜手术66例患者,平均年龄(40±13)岁。纳入踝关节骨折ORIF术后因残余痛及其他各种原因行踝关节镜手术的患者,排除炎症性关节炎及下肢神经病变、合并精神疾病者。记录术前、术后4周、6月的疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)及美国足踝骨科协会踝－后足(AOFAS)评分,记录并发症及处理方法。组间比较采用单因素ANOVA方差分析。 结果术后早期无关节镜相关并发症发生。术后4周、6月VAS评分比术前显著改善(t＝2.783, P<0.05), AOFAS评分与术前相比明显升高(t＝6.271, P <0.01)。术后4年再次手术率为19.7%。 结论踝关节骨折ORIF手术后因各种原因行踝关节镜手术早期可以减轻疼痛、改善功能,但中期再手术率高。     

闭合性胫骨平台骨折切开复位内固定术后深部感染的危险因素

目的探讨闭合性胫骨平台骨折切开复位内固定术后深部感染的发生率，并分析其相关危险因素。 方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2018年6月张家港市第五人民医院骨科收治的252例闭合性胫骨平台骨折并接受切开复位内固定手术的患者。收集患者术前基本资料和感染相关危险指标（包括创伤及手术相关指标）；根据是否发生深部感染分为感染组（14例）和未感染组（238例）；采用Logistic多因素回归分析评价闭合性胫骨平台骨折感染发生的高危因素。 结果闭合性胫骨平台骨折切开复位内固定术后深部感染最常见的病原菌为金黄色葡萄球菌（9/14、64.29%），其中44.44%（4/9）为耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌（MRSA）。与未感染组相比，感染组患者住院时间显著延长[（31.3 ± 16.5）d vs. （16.6 ± 4.8）d，t = 21.162、P < 0.001]、术中失血量增多[（455.2 ± 713.1）ml vs. （255.7 ± 330.8）ml，t = 4.115、P = 0.016]，手术时间延长[（196.4 ± 98.0）min vs. （124.5 ± 56.4）min，t = 10.522、P < 0.001]，差异均有统计学意义。单因素分析显示高体重指数（BMI）（> 26.4 kg/m²）（χ² = 12.428、P < 0.001）、美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）分级≥ 3级（χ² = 10.333、P = 0.001）、Schatzker Ⅴ和Ⅵ（χ² = 4.166、P = 0.041）、手术时间延长（χ² = 9.175、P = 0.002）均为发生深部感染的高危因素。Logistic多因素回归分析显示BMI> 26.4 kg/m²（OR = 1.192、P = 0.011）、手术时间> 148 min（OR = 3.769、P = 0.008）和ASA分级≥ 3级（OR = 1.240、P = 0.020）均为发生深部感染的独立危险因素。 结论胫骨平台骨折切开复位内固定术后深部感染发生率较高，高BMI、手术时间延长以及ASA分级≥ 3级为深部感染发生的独立危险因素。     

Open reduction and internal fixation versus hybrid fixation for bicondylar/severe tibial plateau fractures: a systematic review of the literature

Introduction  Bicondylar/Schatzker 6 type tibial plateau fractures are a significant challenge to the trauma and orthopaedic surgeon. These injuries tend to be complex, high energy and are activated with significant morbidity. Two surgical methods are commonly in use: (1) hybrid external fixation or (2) internal fixation. We performed a systematic analysis of papers comparing these two techniques. Methods  The Medline database was used and the MeSH terms associated with bicondylar/severe tibial plateau fractures were inserted. Results  Forty-nine studies were retrieved but only five papers presented data to directly compare the two techniques as these studies actually compared the implants. Study designs and outcome measures were not consistent in all studies and therefore no direct comparison could be made between the papers. The first two studies were laboratory based and suggested that hybrid external fixation may have a benefit over internal fixation with respect to failure load and its use in compromised bone. Two further papers presented only type 4 evidence. The final paper was a multicentre randomised controlled trial and it demonstrated a marginal non-significant benefit of hybrid external fixation over internal fixation although there was suggestion of beta error [i.e. accepting the hypothesis when it is not true]. Conclusion  Bicondylar/Schatzker 6 type fractures are difficult to manage. The treatment of such fractures, need to pay specific attention to the soft tissue envelope around the knee. Hybrid external fixation has theoretical advantages in terms of the soft tissues but the benefit over internal fixation is modest at best and has not demonstrated improved outcome. Newer fixed angle screw and plate systems are increasingly in use and need comparative studies to determine their role in this complex group of fractures.     

Three-dimensional printing combined with open reduction and internal fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of acetabular fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcome of three-dimensional (3D) printing combined with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to traditional ORIF in the treatment of acetabular fractures.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, VIP database, CNKI, and Wanfang database with keywords “acetabular fracture”, “3D printing”, “three-dimensional printing”, “open reduction and internal fixation”, “Acetabulum”, “Acetabula” from January 2000 to March 2020. Two reviewers independently selected articles, extracted data, assessed the quality evidence and risk bias of included trials using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools and/or NewcastleeOttawa scale. When the two analysts had different opinions, they would ask the third analyst for opinion. Randomized controlled trials or retrospective comparative studies of 3D printing combined with ORIF (3D printing group) versus traditional ORIF (conventional group) in the treatment of acetabular fractures were selected. The data of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, incidence of complications, excellent and good rate of Matta score for reduction, and excellent and good rate of hip function score were extracted. Stata14.0 statistical software was used for data analysis.Results: Altogether 9 articles were selected, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective studies. A total of 467 patients were analyzed, 250 in the conventional group, and 217 in the 3D printing group. The operation time in the 3D printing group was less than that in the conventional group and the difference was statistically significant (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.55 to 0.82, p < 0.05). The intraoperative bleeding volume of the 3D printing group was significantly lower than that of the conventional group (SMD = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.65 to 0.51, p < 0.05). The fluoroscopy times were less in the 3D printing group than in the conventional group and the difference was statistically significant (SMD = 1.64, 95% CI: 2.35 to 0.93, p < 0.05). The total incidence of complications in the 3D printing group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.24-0.79, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the excellent and good rate of Matta score for reduction between the two groups (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.34-1.06, p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the excellent and good rate of hip function score at the end of postoperative follow-up between the two groups (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.46-1.56, p > 0.05), but the follow-up time varies from 6 months to 40 months.Conclusion: Compared with traditional ORIF, 3D printing combined with ORIF has certain advantages in terms that 3D printing not only helps surgeons to understand acetabular fractures more intuitively, but also effectively reduces operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, and postoperative complications. However, there were no significant differences in the excellent and good rate of Matta score for reduction and the excellent and good rate of hip function score at the end of follow-up.     

微创空心钉与切开复位钢板内固定治疗肱骨大结节骨折疗效分析

目的：探讨微创空心钉与切开复位钢板内固定治疗肱骨大结节骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析在我院进行治疗的肱骨大结节骨折的患者60例的临床资料。其中30例患者采用微创空心钉治疗,30例患者采用切开复位钢板内固定。比较两组的临床疗效。结果微创组切口长度显著较短,手术时间和住院时间显著短于钢板组,术中出血量显著少于钢板组（P均＜0.01）。两组肩关节功能优良率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论微创空心钉治疗肱骨大结节骨折具有创伤小、恢复快、临床疗效好等优点,值得临床推广。     

Efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation in achieving bony union of comminuted mandibular fractures caused by civilian gunshot injuries

IntroductionComminuted fractures of the mandible caused by gunshot injuries were traditionally treated with closed reduction using maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF).^2,3 Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has become a valuable treatment modality in the management of comminuted mandibular fractures due to low rate of complications and predictable healing ^{4, 5}.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of ORIF compared with MMF in achieving bony union of comminuted mandibular fractures in gunshot injury patients.Methodology: Randomized controlled trial conducted at the department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Abbasi Shaheed Hospital for a period of 3 years; total of 40 patients divided equally into two groups. Group A were treated with ORIF and group B were treated with MMF. Callus formation radiographically was confirmed by 8th week post operatively. Data was collected using proforma, entered on a statistical software SPSS version 20. Frequency percentages were computed for age and gender. Chi square and Fisher's exact tests were applied. P value ≤ 0.05 considered significant.ResultA total of 40 patients of gunshot injuries were included in this study. 37 (92.5%) were males and 3 (7.5%) were Females with mean age of 36.35 ± 12.9 years SD. 19 (47.5%) patients showed callus formation, whereas, 21 (52.5%) did not. Out of 19 patients, 14 (70%) belonged to group A, and 5 (25%) from group B. The final healing considered by 8th week was in 16 (80%) of ORIF group A, and 8 (40%) group B (MMF) after calculating the clinical and radiographic evidences.ConclusionComparative clinical trials have proven that ORIF is superior to MMF in the management of comminuted mandibular fractures. Early primary repair and internal fixation provides predictable and cost effective results.     

肱骨髁间骨折切开复位内固定临床分析

目的探讨切开复位内固定术治疗肱骨髁间骨折的方法和效果。方法回顾性分析45例接受肱骨髁间骨折切开复位内固定术患者的临床资料。结果按Jupiiter肘关节功能评分标准,优良率82.2%(37/45)。结论切开复位内固定术治疗肱骨髁间骨折,骨折复位良好、固定牢固、肘关节功能恢复良好,效果满意。