• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Porovnání dvou metod miniinvazivní osteosyntézy u zlomenin hlavičky vřetenní kosti u dětí
[Comparison of Two Minimally Invasive Osteosynthesis Techniques for Radial Head Fractures in Paediatric Patients]

O. Marek, J. Turek, A. Seehofnerová, L. Plánka, R. Štichhauer

. 2022 ; 89 (3) : 213-219.

Jazyk čeština Země Česko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22016365

Digitální knihovna NLK
Zdroj

E-zdroje Online

NLK Free Medical Journals od 2006

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Radial head fractures in paediatric patients account for 5-19% of all elbow injuries and approximately 1% of all fractures in children. Non-displaced fractures are treated with plaster cast fixation. If the fracture is displaced, we proceed to closed reduction, or to osteosynthesis in case of unstable fragments. If closed reduction fails, we opt for open reduction and osteosynthesis. The prospective randomised clinical study aims to compare the two methods of minimally invasive osteosynthesis using the pre-bent Kirschner wire or Prévot nail and to identify differences between them. MATERIAL AND METHODS The prospective randomised clinical study was conducted in 2015-2019. The final cohort included 32 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The patients in whom other osteosynthesis implants had been used or in whom open reduction had to be performed were excluded from the study. Also excluded were the patients with serious concomitant injuries of elbow. For patients included in the cohort, demographic data, precise evaluation of the displacement and location of the fracture as well as the duration of plaster cast fixation and osteosynthesis implants used were recorded. In the clinical part, the methods were compared based on the achievement of full range of motion in dependence on the degree of original displacement, use of osteosynthesis implant, and occurrence of early and delayed complications. Clinical and radiological outcomes were compared. In both types of minimally invasive osteosynthesis, Métaizeau surgical technique was used. RESULTS Based on the clinical trial criteria, 26 (81%) excellent, 4 (13%) good and 2 (6%) acceptable outcomes were achieved. In 3 cases the loss of rotation was up to 20°, in 1 case the loss of flexion was up to 10°. In one patient the loss of flexion was 15° and rotation up to 30°. In another patient the loss of rotation was up to 40°. The radiological assessment showed 14 (44%) excellent outcomes, 15 good (47%) and 3 (9%) acceptable outcomes. The statistical analysis of both the groups of the cohort using non-parametric tests revealed no statistically significant differences in individual demographic parameters. The comparisons of both types of osteosynthesis in dependence on the degree of displacement by non-parametric Fisher's exact test showed no statistically significant difference in the radiologic or clinical results. The only statistically significant difference was observed in the duration of metal implant placement. DISCUSSION Comparable studies report excellent or good clinical outcomes in 80-95% of cases (1,13,16). In our cohort, excellent or good clinical outcomes were achieved in 30 patients (94%). In two patients, in whom Prévot nail was used, the outcomes were acceptable. Nonetheless, this fact did not result in any statistical significance when comparing the two methods separately or in comparisons based on the degree of displacement. CONCLUSIONS The comparison of the two methods of minimally invasive osteosynthesis revealed no statistically significant difference, namely not even when both the methods were compared based on the degree of displacement. When Kirschner wire is used, the possibility to remove the metal implant in the outpatient setting is considered to be an advantage. The drawback consists in potential penetration of the sharp Kirschner wire in the radiocapitellar joint, which we did not encounter when the second technique of osteosynthesis was used. The advantage of Prévot nail includes a lower risk of pin-tract infection. Key words: minimally invasive osteosynthesis, radial head, fracture, child.

Comparison of Two Minimally Invasive Osteosynthesis Techniques for Radial Head Fractures in Paediatric Patients

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22016365
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230224090316.0
007      
ta
008      
220714s2022 xr a f 000 0|cze||
009      
AR
024    7_
$2 doi $a 10.55095/achot2022/032
035    __
$a (PubMed)35815489
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a cze $b eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Marek, Ondřej $u Klinika dětské chirurgie, ortopedie a traumatologie Fakultní nemocnice Brno, Lékařská fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Brno $7 xx0271766
245    10
$a Porovnání dvou metod miniinvazivní osteosyntézy u zlomenin hlavičky vřetenní kosti u dětí / $c O. Marek, J. Turek, A. Seehofnerová, L. Plánka, R. Štichhauer
246    31
$a [Comparison of Two Minimally Invasive Osteosynthesis Techniques for Radial Head Fractures in Paediatric Patients]
520    9_
$a PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Radial head fractures in paediatric patients account for 5-19% of all elbow injuries and approximately 1% of all fractures in children. Non-displaced fractures are treated with plaster cast fixation. If the fracture is displaced, we proceed to closed reduction, or to osteosynthesis in case of unstable fragments. If closed reduction fails, we opt for open reduction and osteosynthesis. The prospective randomised clinical study aims to compare the two methods of minimally invasive osteosynthesis using the pre-bent Kirschner wire or Prévot nail and to identify differences between them. MATERIAL AND METHODS The prospective randomised clinical study was conducted in 2015-2019. The final cohort included 32 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The patients in whom other osteosynthesis implants had been used or in whom open reduction had to be performed were excluded from the study. Also excluded were the patients with serious concomitant injuries of elbow. For patients included in the cohort, demographic data, precise evaluation of the displacement and location of the fracture as well as the duration of plaster cast fixation and osteosynthesis implants used were recorded. In the clinical part, the methods were compared based on the achievement of full range of motion in dependence on the degree of original displacement, use of osteosynthesis implant, and occurrence of early and delayed complications. Clinical and radiological outcomes were compared. In both types of minimally invasive osteosynthesis, Métaizeau surgical technique was used. RESULTS Based on the clinical trial criteria, 26 (81%) excellent, 4 (13%) good and 2 (6%) acceptable outcomes were achieved. In 3 cases the loss of rotation was up to 20°, in 1 case the loss of flexion was up to 10°. In one patient the loss of flexion was 15° and rotation up to 30°. In another patient the loss of rotation was up to 40°. The radiological assessment showed 14 (44%) excellent outcomes, 15 good (47%) and 3 (9%) acceptable outcomes. The statistical analysis of both the groups of the cohort using non-parametric tests revealed no statistically significant differences in individual demographic parameters. The comparisons of both types of osteosynthesis in dependence on the degree of displacement by non-parametric Fisher's exact test showed no statistically significant difference in the radiologic or clinical results. The only statistically significant difference was observed in the duration of metal implant placement. DISCUSSION Comparable studies report excellent or good clinical outcomes in 80-95% of cases (1,13,16). In our cohort, excellent or good clinical outcomes were achieved in 30 patients (94%). In two patients, in whom Prévot nail was used, the outcomes were acceptable. Nonetheless, this fact did not result in any statistical significance when comparing the two methods separately or in comparisons based on the degree of displacement. CONCLUSIONS The comparison of the two methods of minimally invasive osteosynthesis revealed no statistically significant difference, namely not even when both the methods were compared based on the degree of displacement. When Kirschner wire is used, the possibility to remove the metal implant in the outpatient setting is considered to be an advantage. The drawback consists in potential penetration of the sharp Kirschner wire in the radiocapitellar joint, which we did not encounter when the second technique of osteosynthesis was used. The advantage of Prévot nail includes a lower risk of pin-tract infection. Key words: minimally invasive osteosynthesis, radial head, fracture, child.
650    _2
$a kostní dráty $7 D001864
650    _2
$a dítě $7 D002648
650    12
$a vnitřní fixace fraktury $x metody $7 D005593
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a radius $x zranění $7 D011884
650    12
$a fraktury vřetenní kosti $x diagnostické zobrazování $x etiologie $x chirurgie $7 D011885
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
700    1_
$a Turek, Jakub $u Klinika dětské chirurgie, ortopedie a traumatologie Fakultní nemocnice Brno, Lékařská fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Brno $7 xx0231279
700    1_
$a Seehofnerová, Anna, $u Klinika dětské radiologie Fakultní nemocnice Brno, Lékařská fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Brno $d 1987- $7 xx0248721
700    1_
$a Plánka, Ladislav, $u Klinika dětské chirurgie, ortopedie a traumatologie Fakultní nemocnice Brno, Lékařská fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Brno $d 1977- $7 xx0081919
700    1_
$a Štichhauer, Radek, $u Oddělení dětské chirurgie a traumatologie Fakultní nemocnice Hradec Králové, Lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Hradec Králové $d 1975- $7 xx0228998
773    0_
$w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $x 0001-5415 $g Roč. 89, č. 3 (2022), s. 213-219
856    41
$u https://achot.cz/pdfs/ach/2022/03/07.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220714 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230224090308 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1825260 $s 1167607
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 89 $c 3 $d 213-219 $e $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $n Acta chir. orthop. traumatol. Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
LZP    __
$b NLK198 $a Pubmed-20220714

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...