• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Miniinvazivní stabilizace poranění zadního pánevního segmentu transiliakálním vnitřním fixátorem a dvěma iliosakrálními šrouby: srovnání funkčních výsledků [Minimally invasive stabilization of posterior pelvic ring injuries with a transiliac internal fixator and two iliosacral screws: comparison of outcome]

M. Salášek, T. Pavelka, J. Křen, D. Weisová, M. Jansová

. 2015 ; 82 (1) : 41-47.

Jazyk čeština Země Česko

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, anglický abstrakt, hodnotící studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc15040018

Digitální knihovna NLK
Zdroj

E-zdroje Online

NLK Free Medical Journals od 2006

Odkazy

PubMed 25748660

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: A comparison of radiological and clinical results between dorsal pelvic segment stabilization with a transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) and that with two iliosacral screws (IS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, both the TIFI and the IS group had 32 patients. The majority of injuries were assessed as type C1.3 because only patients with a high-energy mechanism of injury were included. Radiological results were evaluated according to the Matta scoring system and clinical outcome using the Majeed score and the Pelvic Outcome Score. Categorical data were evaluated by the two-sided Fisher's exact test or Pearson's χ2 test and continuous data by Student's t-test. A test result with p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In the TIFI group, the mean posterior displacement was 2.2 mm, in the IS group it was 1.9 mm (p=0.58542). The pelvic outcome scores in the TIFI group were: excellent, 28%; good, 12%; fair, 48.0%; and poor, 4 %; in the IS group they were: excellent, 11.1%; good, 22.2%; fair, 66.7%; and poor, 0.0% (p=0.51731). The Majeed scores were as follows: excellent, 56.0%; good, 16.0%; fair, 20.0%; poor 8.0 % for the TIFI group and excellent, 50.0%; good, 27.8%; fair, 11.1%; and poor, 11.1% for the IS group (p=0.70187). Within the total, average Majeed score was 80.64 points in TIFI, 80.67 in IS (p=0.99654). In a sub-analysis of unilateral transforaminal fractures (Pohlemann type II), the average score for TIFI was 82.8 points and only 53.5 points for IS; the differences were statistically significant (p=0.04517). No intraoperative complications were associated with TIFI and one injury to the superior gluteal artery (3.1%) and two iatrogenic neurological injuries with IS (6.3%; p=0.23810). In the TIFI group, the fixator was removed without complications. In the IS group, post-operative wound bleeding following screw removal occurred in three patients (20.0%; p=0.22414), complete extraction of screws and washers was successful only in seven patients (46.7%), washers were left in situ in six patients (40.0 %) and IS removal was not possible in two patients (13.3%). The difference in complications between the groups was highly significant (p=0.00220). DISCUSSION: The results of our study are in agreement with those of the relevant studies published recently as well as with the outcomes of transiliac plate fixation reported in the literature. TIFI implantation is preferred in transforaminal and central sacral fractures because, unlike iliosacral screws, it carries a low risk of excessive compression of the sacral foramina and iatrogenic neurological injury. There were no significant differences in clinical and radiological findings between TIFI and IS procedures. Only in unilateral transforaminal fracture the TIFI stabilization had better outcome, as shown by the Majeed score. The IS fixation was associated with a higher rate of complications not only in primary implantation, but also at implant removal. CONCLUSIONS: The TIFI technique is superior to the IS procedure in fixation of unilateral transforaminal fractures and provides a reasonable alternative to the existing types of minimally invasive fixation.

Minimally invasive stabilization of posterior pelvic ring injuries with a transiliac internal fixator and two iliosacral screws: comparison of outcome

Bibliografie atd.

Literatura

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc15040018
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20161109073256.0
007      
ta
008      
151230s2015 xr a f 000 0|cze||
009      
AR
024    7_
$2 doi $a 10.55095/achot2015/005
035    __
$a (PubMed)25748660
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a cze
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Salášek, Martin $7 xx0129311 $u Klinika ortopedie a traumatologie pohybového ústrojí LF UK a FN Plzeň; Katedra mechaniky, Fakulta aplikovaných věd a Nové technologie pro informační společnost Západočeské univerzity v Plzni
245    10
$a Miniinvazivní stabilizace poranění zadního pánevního segmentu transiliakálním vnitřním fixátorem a dvěma iliosakrálními šrouby: srovnání funkčních výsledků / $c M. Salášek, T. Pavelka, J. Křen, D. Weisová, M. Jansová
246    31
$a Minimally invasive stabilization of posterior pelvic ring injuries with a transiliac internal fixator and two iliosacral screws: comparison of outcome
504    __
$a Literatura
520    3_
$a PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: A comparison of radiological and clinical results between dorsal pelvic segment stabilization with a transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) and that with two iliosacral screws (IS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, both the TIFI and the IS group had 32 patients. The majority of injuries were assessed as type C1.3 because only patients with a high-energy mechanism of injury were included. Radiological results were evaluated according to the Matta scoring system and clinical outcome using the Majeed score and the Pelvic Outcome Score. Categorical data were evaluated by the two-sided Fisher's exact test or Pearson's χ2 test and continuous data by Student's t-test. A test result with p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In the TIFI group, the mean posterior displacement was 2.2 mm, in the IS group it was 1.9 mm (p=0.58542). The pelvic outcome scores in the TIFI group were: excellent, 28%; good, 12%; fair, 48.0%; and poor, 4 %; in the IS group they were: excellent, 11.1%; good, 22.2%; fair, 66.7%; and poor, 0.0% (p=0.51731). The Majeed scores were as follows: excellent, 56.0%; good, 16.0%; fair, 20.0%; poor 8.0 % for the TIFI group and excellent, 50.0%; good, 27.8%; fair, 11.1%; and poor, 11.1% for the IS group (p=0.70187). Within the total, average Majeed score was 80.64 points in TIFI, 80.67 in IS (p=0.99654). In a sub-analysis of unilateral transforaminal fractures (Pohlemann type II), the average score for TIFI was 82.8 points and only 53.5 points for IS; the differences were statistically significant (p=0.04517). No intraoperative complications were associated with TIFI and one injury to the superior gluteal artery (3.1%) and two iatrogenic neurological injuries with IS (6.3%; p=0.23810). In the TIFI group, the fixator was removed without complications. In the IS group, post-operative wound bleeding following screw removal occurred in three patients (20.0%; p=0.22414), complete extraction of screws and washers was successful only in seven patients (46.7%), washers were left in situ in six patients (40.0 %) and IS removal was not possible in two patients (13.3%). The difference in complications between the groups was highly significant (p=0.00220). DISCUSSION: The results of our study are in agreement with those of the relevant studies published recently as well as with the outcomes of transiliac plate fixation reported in the literature. TIFI implantation is preferred in transforaminal and central sacral fractures because, unlike iliosacral screws, it carries a low risk of excessive compression of the sacral foramina and iatrogenic neurological injury. There were no significant differences in clinical and radiological findings between TIFI and IS procedures. Only in unilateral transforaminal fracture the TIFI stabilization had better outcome, as shown by the Majeed score. The IS fixation was associated with a higher rate of complications not only in primary implantation, but also at implant removal. CONCLUSIONS: The TIFI technique is superior to the IS procedure in fixation of unilateral transforaminal fractures and provides a reasonable alternative to the existing types of minimally invasive fixation.
650    12
$a kostní šrouby $7 D001863
650    _2
$a vnitřní fixace fraktury $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D005593
650    _2
$a fraktury kostí $x radiografie $x chirurgie $7 D050723
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a os ilium $x chirurgie $7 D007085
650    12
$a interní fixátory $7 D016268
650    _2
$a miniinvazivní chirurgické výkony $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D019060
650    _2
$a pánevní kosti $x zranění $x radiografie $x chirurgie $7 D010384
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a anglický abstrakt $7 D004740
655    _2
$a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Pavelka, Tomáš, $d 1955- $7 xx0062710 $u Klinika ortopedie a traumatologie pohybového ústrojí LF UK a FN Plzeň
700    1_
$a Křen, Jiří, $d 1947- $7 ola2002146730 $u Katedra mechaniky, Fakulta aplikovaných věd a Nové technologie pro informační společnost Západočeské univerzity v Plzni
700    1_
$a Weisová, Drahomíra $7 _AN075373 $u Klinika ortopedie a traumatologie pohybového ústrojí LF UK a FN Plzeň; Katedra mechaniky, Fakulta aplikovaných věd a Nové technologie pro informační společnost Západočeské univerzity v Plzni
700    1_
$a Jansová, Magdalena $7 zcu2015884861 $u Katedra mechaniky, Fakulta aplikovaných věd a Nové technologie pro informační společnost Západočeské univerzity v Plzni
773    0_
$w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $x 0001-5415 $g Roč. 82, č. 1 (2015), s. 41-47
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y 4 $z 0
990    __
$a 20151230 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20161109073232 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1103702 $s 923245
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 82 $c 1 $d 41-47 $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $n Acta chir. orthop. traumatol. Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
LZP    __
$b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20151230

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...