Comparison between tension band and cerclage with X-Plate and lag screws in treatment of comminuted patellar fractures

BackgroundComminuted patellar fractures are not rare, and the ideal treatment method remains controversial. The present study was conducted to evaluate effects and compare complications of two different methods used to treat comminuted patellar fractures.MethodsFrom March 2010 to August 2016, 102 cases of 34-C2 or 34-C3 comminuted patellar fractures were treated at our hospital, wherein patients received two different treatments: titanium cable tension band with cerclage method (group A) and intrafragmentary screws with X-shaped plating technique (group B). At follow-ups, articular step-off, range of motion (ROM), Lysholm scores, time of union, and complications were recorded and analyzed. Radiographic and clinical data as well as rate of complications were statistically analyzed.ResultsIn total, 87 patients were included in the final analysis (n = 47 in group A and n = 40 in group B). No significant differences were noted in terms of cost of implant, age, gender, rate of 34-C3 fractures, rate of layered inferior pole fractures, postoperative articular step-off and union time. At 2-year follow-up, average Lysholm scores, ROM and rate of complications were (89.0 ± 4.5), (122°±12°) and (27.7%) in group A and (90.2 ± 3.9), (124°±11°) and (17.5%) in group B, respectively, with no significant differences (p > 0.05). The mean time of surgery in group B was shorter than that in group A with significant difference (p < 0.05).ConclusionsTreatment using the intrafragmentary screws and plate method for amenable comminuted patellar fractures achieved similar complication rate and favorable functional outcomes at the 2-year follow-up, which was comparable to the titanium cable tension band with cerclage method. Thus, the intrafragmentary screws and plate method is effective, safe and convenient for 34-C2/C3 comminuted patellar fractures, especially appropriate for patients with layered fragments.     

中日友好医院分型股骨头坏死腓骨植入治疗的三维有限元分析

文题释义：股骨头坏死中日友好医院分型的有限元分析：根据李子荣等提出的中日友好医院分型，建立股骨头坏死三维模型，分为 M型(内侧型)、C型(中央型)和 L型(外侧型)，其中 L型包括L1型(次外侧型)、L2型(极外侧型)和 L3型(全头型)。通过对建立的模型进行有限元分析，为该分型的保髋治疗提供了一定力学依据，显示外侧柱的存留是精准预防塌陷的重要因素，为进一步实现个体化治疗提供力学基础。 腓骨支撑坏死股骨头保髋手术：是对于早中期股骨头坏死需要保留股骨头患者进行的一种手术方式。首先需对股骨头进行髓芯减压，清除一定坏死骨，空腔填塞松质骨(髂骨为主)，打压结实后植入腓骨(异体或自体)支撑，给坏死区的提供力学支撑及生物学修复，预防股骨头进一步坏死及塌陷。 背景：研究报道股骨头坏死的保髋疗效与外侧柱存留密切相关，中日友好医院分型是根据三柱结构确立的，对股骨头塌陷的预测准确性高。 目的：建立股骨头坏死中日友好医院分型各分型仿真的三维有限元模型，通过有限元分析各分型腓骨植入的力学变化，探讨外侧柱存留对保髋疗效的意义，为该分型的塌陷精准预测提供基础。 方法：建立正常股骨头、中日友好医院分型(M型、C型、L1型、L2型、L3型)股骨头坏死及其腓骨植入3组11种三维有限元模型，运用ANSYS软件进行有限元分析计算，观察各组模型的最大应力值、最大位移值及股骨头内部载荷传递模式。 结果与结论：①坏死组位移最大，应变最大，且因坏死分型不同而位移不同，位移变化如下：M型相似文献   

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.