微型钢板内固定治疗跖跗关节损伤21例

目的探讨切开复位微型钢板内固定治疗跖跗关节损伤的临床疗效。方法应用国产钛合金微型钢板内固定治疗跖跗关节损伤21例。结果切口均一期愈合,有2例切口边缘部分坏死,经换药后痊愈。患者均获随访,时间9～16（12.2±3.6）个月。术后9～16个月拆除内固定。根据美国足踝外科协会AOFAS评分为73～95（86.5±9.8）分,优10例,良9例,中2例。结论切开复位微型钢板内固定治疗跖跗关节损伤,可达到坚强稳定跖跗关节的效果,可以早期活动踝部诸关节,达到较理想的临床疗效。     

Lisfranc关节损伤切开复位内固定术与I期跗趾关节融合术的比较

两个小样本对照试验得到的证据尚不足以说明,在Lisfranc关节损伤时,切开复位内固定术(ORIF)的治疗效果要优于I期跗趾关节融合术.     

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.     

Outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of Lisfranc joint injuries

BACKGROUND: Open reduction and internal fixation has been recommended as the treatment for most unstable injuries of the Lisfranc (tarsometatarsal) joint. It has been thought that purely ligamentous injuries have a poor outcome despite such surgical management. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent open reduction and screw fixation of a Lisfranc injury in a seven-year period. Among ninety-two adults treated for that injury, forty-eight patients with forty-eight injuries were followed for an average of fifty-two months (range, thirteen to 114 months). Fifteen injuries were purely ligamentous, and thirty-three were combined ligamentous and osseous. Patient outcome was assessed with use of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and the long-form Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) score. RESULTS: The average AOFAS midfoot score was 77 points (on a scale of 0 to 100 points, with 100 points indicating an excellent outcome), with patients losing points for mild pain, decreased recreational function, and orthotic requirements. The average MFA score was 19 points (on a scale of 0 to 100 points, with 0 points indicating an excellent outcome), with patients losing points because of problems with "leisure activities" and difficulties with "life changes and feelings due to the injury." Twelve patients (25 percent) had posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the tarsometatarsal joints, and six of them required arthrodesis. The major determinant of a good result was anatomical reduction (p = 0.05). The subgroup of patients with purely ligamentous injury showed a trend toward poorer outcomes despite anatomical reduction and screw fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the concept that stable anatomical reduction of fracture-dislocations of the Lisfranc joint leads to the best long-term outcomes as patients so treated have less arthritis as well as better AOFAS midfoot scores.     

切开复位内固定治疗跗跖关节损伤17例报告

目的 探讨切开复位内固定治疗踝关节损伤的疗效.方法 我科于2007年9月～2010年8月收治急性闭合性跗跖关节损伤病例17例,全部采用切开复位AO螺钉内固定治疗.结果 术后切口均一期愈合,其中13例获得随访,随访6～22个月,平均12个月.按美国足踝外科协会足踝评分标准(AOFAS):70～80分1例,80～90分5例...     

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。     

切开复位内固定治疗隐匿性跖跗关节损伤

目的探讨切开复位内固定治疗隐匿性跖跗关节损伤的临床疗效。方法 2002年7月-2009年7月,收治47例隐匿性跖跗关节损伤患者。男31例,女16例;年龄19～66岁,平均35.6岁。交通事故伤27例,高处坠落伤11例,运动伤6例,压砸伤3例。左足18例,右足29例。单纯内侧柱损伤6例,内侧柱伴中间柱损伤24例,中间柱伴外侧柱损伤13例,三柱损伤4例。患者均存在跖骨基底部骨折。受伤至手术时间为4～21 d,平均8.6 d。手术采用1～2个足背侧纵形切口,复位后用小钢板、螺钉、骑缝钉、克氏针固定内侧柱及中间柱,外侧柱均用克氏针固定。结果 1例术后切口感染,经封闭式负压引流2周后采用腓肠神经营养血管皮瓣移位修复创面;其余患者切口均Ⅰ期愈合。术后32例获随访,随访时间12～75个月,平均28.3个月。骨折于术后9～15周愈合,平均12.3周。末次随访时,15例出现中足骨关节炎表现,但无需行关节融合术。采用美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)的中足评分标准评价疗效,获优9例,良16例,一般4例,差3例,优良率为78.1%。随访期间均未出现跖跗关节再脱位。结论对跖骨基底部骨折应给予足够重视,术中探查有助于发现隐匿性跖跗关节损伤,应根据不同损伤类型及伴发损伤,采用合理的固定方式,尽量做到解剖复位、可靠固定,重建中足内在稳定是获得满意疗效的关键。     

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。     

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...     

经皮闭合复位内固定治疗隐匿性Lisfranc损伤

[目的]评介经皮闭合复位内固定治疗隐匿性Lisfranc损伤患者的疗效。[方法] 2012年1月～2015年12月,选择符合条件的32例隐匿性Lisfranc损伤患者纳入研究,其中新鲜损伤19例,陈旧性损伤(外伤后超过6周) 13例,均为单足,平均年龄(36.23±5.14)岁。术后末次随访时采用美国足踝外科协会AOFAS评分量表进行评估,测定术前及术后3个月站立相足底平均压力值。[结果] 32例患者随访12～22个月,平均(16.17±2.41)个月,所有患者术后均无内固定物失效、再次骨折脱位等并发症发生。末次随访时新鲜损伤组与陈旧损伤组的AOFAS评价均较术前显著增加,差异有统计学意义(P0.01),但相应时间点两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。此外,新鲜损伤组、陈旧损伤组治疗后3个月足底压力载荷均较术前显著增加(P0.01),但相时间点两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]对隐匿性Lisfranc损伤的治疗,经皮闭合复位重建足弓、恢复足内外侧纵弓及横弓解剖形态,牢固内固定均可以取得较好的治疗效果。     

Radiographic assessment of ligamentous injuries in distal radius fractures after open reduction and internal fixation

Objectives

Concomitant ligamentous injury in distal radius fractures (DRF) may explain continued pain following surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare radiographic measurements assessing scaphoid translation in DRF after reduction, to measurements performed on normal radiographs. This may allow noninvasive evaluation of radiocarpal ligamentous integrity.

Methods

Fifty postoperative radiographs were evaluated. The distance between the ulnar border of the radial styloid and the radial border of the scaphoid was measured midway between the styloid tip and scaphoid base, and then divided by scaphoid width at the same level. The measured ratios were compared to previously established normal data, established radiographic measurements of fracture reduction, fracture characteristics and fixation methods.

Results

Radiographic scaphoid position measurements differed significantly from normals (p = 0.0001). Fracture characteristics, surgical difficulty, and technique were not associated with scaphoid position.

Conclusions

Despite accurate surgical reduction, abnormal positioning of the scaphoid may persist. This may reflect ligamentous injury, which generates suboptimal clinical results. Identifying and addressing ligamentous injury during surgery may prevent the development of instability and improve outcome after DRF.     

A randomized prospective study on the treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures: open reduction and internal fixation with dorsal plating versus mini open reduction, percutaneous fixation, and external fixation

PURPOSE: To compare 2 methods of surgical treatment for displaced intra-articular fractures of the distal radius: open reduction and internal fixation with dorsal plating (Pi Plate; Synthes, Paoli, PA) versus mini open reduction with percutaneous K-wire and external fixation. METHODS: Patients with AO type C intra-articular distal radius fractures were randomized into 2 groups: open reduction and internal fixation and dorsal plating or external fixation and K-wires and mini-open reduction. Patients over the age of 70 years with any associated soft-tissue or skeletal injury to the same limb and pre-existing wrist arthrosis or disability were excluded from the study. Objective, subjective, and radiographic outcomes were assessed at 2 weeks, 4 to 6 weeks, 10 to 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1- and 2-year intervals. The minimum follow-up period was 6 months; the average follow-up period was 18 months. The principal outcome analyzed was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. Secondary outcomes included grip strength, range of motion, surgical procedure time, complications, and radiographic parameters. The groups were equal with respect to age, gender, fracture subtype, and number of workers' compensation cases. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores, our primary outcome. The dorsal plate group, however, showed a higher complication rate when compared with the external fixator group. The plate group had significantly longer tourniquet times when compared with the external fixator group. The plate group also had higher levels of pain at 1 year when compared with the external fixator group; however, this equalized after hardware removal. The external fixator group showed an average grip strength of 97% compared with the normal side and 86% in the dorsal plate group. CONCLUSIONS: At midterm analysis the dorsal plate group showed a significantly higher complication rate compared with the external fixator group; therefore enrollment in the study was terminated. The dorsal plate group also showed statistically significant higher levels of pain, weaker grip strength, and longer surgical and tourniquet times. Based on these results we cannot recommend the use of dorsal plates in treating complex intra-articular fractures of the distal radius.     

Primary open reduction and fixation compared with delayed corrective arthrodesis in the treatment of tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) fracture dislocation

Fracture-dislocations of the tarsometatarsal (Lisfranc) joints are frequently overlooked or misdiagnosed at initial presentation. This is a comparative cohort study over a period of five years comparing primary open reduction and internal fixation in 22 patients (23 feet) with secondary corrective arthrodesis in 22 patients (22 feet) who presented with painful malunion at a mean of 22 months (1.5 to 45) after injury. In the first group primary treatment by open reduction and internal fixation for eight weeks with Kirschner-wires or screws was undertaken, in the second group treatment was by secondary corrective arthrodesis. There was one deep infection in the first group. In the delayed group there was one complete and one partial nonunion. In each group 20 patients were available for follow-up at a mean of 36 months (24 to 89) after operation. The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society midfoot score was 81.4 (62 to 100) after primary treatment and 71.8 (35 to 88) after corrective arthrodesis (t-test; p = 0.031). We conclude that primary treatment by open reduction and internal fixation of tarsometatarsal fracture-dislocations leads to improved functional results, earlier return to work and greater patient satisfaction than secondary corrective arthrodesis, which remains a useful salvage procedure providing significant relief of pain and improvement in function.     

Percutaneous reduction and fixation of low energy Lisfranc injuries results in better outcome compared to open reduction and internal fixation: Results from a matched case-control study with minimum 12 months follow up

Background: Percutaneous fixation of Lisfranc injuries is potentially less invasive to traditional open techniques but evidence of any clinical benefit is lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous reduction and internal fixation (PRIF) of low energy Lisfranc injuries with a matched, control group of patients treated with ORIF.Methods: Over a seven-year period (2012-2019), 16 consecutive patients with a low energy Lisfranc injury (Myerson B2-type) were treated with PRIF. Patient demographics, injury mechanism and radiological outcomes were recorded within a prospectively maintained database at the institution. This study sample was matched for age, sex and mechanism of injury to a control group of 16 patients with similar low energy Lisfranc injuries (Myerson B2-type) treated with ORIF. Clinical outcome was compared using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score and Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ).Results: At a mean follow up of 43 months (95% CI 35.6 – 50.4), both the AOFAS and MOXFQ scores were significantly higher in the PRIF group compared to the control ORIF group (AOFAS 89.1vs 76.4, p=0.03; MOXFQ 10.0 vs 27.6, p=0.03). There were no immediate postoperative complications in either group. There was no radiological evidence of midfoot osteoarthritis in the PRIF group, three patients in the ORIF group developed midfoot osteoarthritis (p=0.2).Conclusions: PRIF of low energy Lisfranc injures is a safe, minimally invasive technique and is associated with better mid-term clinical outcomes compared to ORIF.     

Acute ligamentous injuries of the Chopart and Lisfranc joint line

The foot is a complex structure with numerous articular surfaces. As there are many potential complications (severe edema, compartment syndrome of the intrinsic foot musculature, bone and soft tissue necrosis, joint abnormalities, limitation of movement, deformities, etc.), traumatic surgeons must have a detailed knowledge of the relevant functional anatomy and treatment procedures. If there are multiple injuries, in the context of management, early definitive treatment for the injury is to be stressed. One requirement is an exact clinical and radiological diagnosis. As a rule, closed reduction is therapeutically successful. In a stable injury, immobilization can be achieved with a cast; in open wounds and malalignment of joint surfaces, an operative procedure is indicated. Particular attention must be paid to injuries of the tarsal bones in children to avoid delayed failure of growth, as the results of radiological investigations are often difficult to interpret. The diagnosis, techniques of management, and principles of follow-up are presented.     

切开复位内固定治疗新鲜跖跗关节损伤的疗效分析

目的：通过回顾性研究,对切开复位内固定治疗新鲜Lisfranc关节骨折脱位的中短期疗效进行分析。方法：2003年1月至2009年12月,收治新鲜Lisfranc关节骨折脱位47例,其中41例（42足）纳入研究,平均年龄31岁。按照Myerson分型：A型9足,B1型7足,B2型11足,C1型10足,C2型5足。术后末次随访时采用美国足踝骨科协会AOFAS评分量表和VAS疼痛量表进行评估。结果：41例患者均获随访,平均随访时间36个月（12-71个月）。平均AOFAS得分为（84．2＋2．8）分（65～100分）,优良率为81％,其中MyersonA型和C型的评分存在差异（胜0．02）。平均VAS得分为（2．6＋0．5）分（0～6分）。3例出现浅表感染,2例皮缘坏死。有19例患者存在负重及行走痛,所有患者存在不同程度的跖跗关节退变,4例出现跖骨骨折畸形愈合,2例出现拇外翻畸形。结论：新鲜Lisfranc关节骨折脱位的治疗,解剖复位内固定可以取得较好的治疗效果;虽然跖跗关节退变不可避免,但并不影响功能愈后。     

切开复位双重加压螺钉固定治疗跖跗关节损伤

[目的]探讨切开复位双重加压螺钉固定治疗跖跗关节损伤的临床疗效.[方法]回顾性分析2007年9月～2010年10月间治疗的67例跖跗关节损伤患者,其中35例损伤患者采用切开复位双重加压螺钉或结合克氏针固定治疗,32例患者采用空心钉或结合克氏针固定治疗.男53例,女14例,年龄18 ～60岁,平均32岁.根据Myerson分型:A型15例,B型36例,C型16例.根据美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)中足评分标准评价比较两种方法的治疗效果.[结果]所有患者均获得随访,平均随访18个月(12～30个月).双重加压螺钉治疗组术后平均AO-FAS中足评分81.7分(56 ～98分),术后未发生感染、创伤性关节炎、螺钉断裂等并发症;空心钉治疗组术后平均AOFAS中足评分78.6分(45 ～96分),2例发生伤口感染,2例未获得解剖复位,二期行关节融合术.两种治疗方法AOFAS评分差异无统计学意义(t=1.056,P＞0.05).[结论]切开复位双重加压螺钉固定治疗跖跗关节损伤与空心螺钉治疗效果相似,由于双重加压螺钉能更好达到解剖复位和坚强固定,切开复位双重加压螺钉固定治疗跖跗关节损伤是一种疗效满意的方法.     

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of ligamentous injuries following dislocation of the elbow joint. A prospective randomized study

Thirty consecutive patients who had dislocation of the elbow without concomitant fracture and who were sixteen years old or more were examined under general anesthesia for stability of the joint at an average of four days after the injury. All of the elbows showed medial and sixteen showed both medial and lateral instability. The patients were then randomly assigned to undergo either non-surgical or surgical treatment of the ligamentous injuries. All of the surgically treated elbows showed complete rupture or avulsion of both the medial and lateral collateral ligaments, and in about half of these patients the muscle origins were found to be torn from the humeral epicondyles. At follow-up, both groups showed generally good results; the differences were not statistically significant. There was no evidence that the results of surgical repair of the ligaments were any better than those of non-surgical treatment.