این سایت در حال حاضر پشتیبانی نمی شود و امکان دارد داده های نشریات بروز نباشند
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery، جلد ۹، شماره ۳، صفحات ۲۷۲-۲۸۲
عنوان فارسی
چکیده فارسی مقاله
کلیدواژه‌های فارسی مقاله
عنوان انگلیسی Open Pilon Fracture Postoperative Outcomes with Definitive Surgical Management Options: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
چکیده انگلیسی مقاله Background: Pilon fractures represent one of the most surgically challenging fractures in orthopaedics. Differenttechniques exist for their management, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and External fixation (Ex-Fix) the most widely used. Whilst there is a plethora of data regarding these strategies for Pilon fractures as a whole,very limited data exists solely on the management of open Pilon fractures. This study aimed to elucidate how surgicalmanagement options can influence postoperative complications, and if this can influence future management protocols.Methods: We conducted a search in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL for postoperative complications andfunctional outcomes in open pilon fractures in those treated with Ex-Fix vs ORIF (PROSPERO-CRD42020184213).The postoperative complications measured included non-:union:, mal-:union:, delayed :union:, bone grafting, amputation,osteoarthritis, deep infection and superficial infection. Functional outcomes in the form of the AOFAS score was alsomeasured where possible. We were able to carry out a meta-analysis for both deep infections and non-:union:s.Results: The search yielded 309 results and a total of 18 studies consisting of 484 patients were included. All fracturesincluded were open, and consisted of 64 Gustilo-Anderson Type I, 148 Type II, 103 Type IIIa, 90 Type IIIb and 9 TypeIIIc. 60 Type III fractures could not be further separated and 12 were ungraded. Both ORIF and Ex-Fix were found tohave statistically similar AOFAS scores (P=0.682). For all included studies, the Ex-Fix group had significantly higherrates of superficial infections (P=0.001), non-:union:s (P=0.001), osteoarthritis (P=0.001) and bone grafting (P=0.001).The meta-analysis found no significant difference in non-:union: (pooled OR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.03 to 2.24, P=0.44) or deep infection rates (pooled OR=1.35, 95% CI: 0.11 to 16.69, P=0.12) between the ORIF and Ex-fix groups.Conclusion: Based on our study, while Ex-Fix and ORIF have similar functional outcomes, Ex-Fix appears to havea significantly higher risk of postoperative complications which must be considered by surgeons when choosingsurgical management options. Further research, ideally in a randomised control trial format, is required to definitivelydemonstrate ORIF superiority in the management of open pilon fractures.Level of evidence: I
کلیدواژه‌های انگلیسی مقاله External fixation, Open pilon fracture, Open reduction internal fixation
نویسندگان مقاله | Natasha Faye Daniels
Faculty of Medicine, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK


| Jiang An Lim
Faculty of Medicine, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK


| Azeem Thahir
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospital, Addenbrookes Major Trauma Centre, Cambridge, UK


| Matija Krkovic
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospital, Addenbrookes Major Trauma Centre, Cambridge, UK
نشانی اینترنتی https://abjs.mums.ac.ir/article_16998.html
فایل مقاله فایلی برای مقاله ذخیره نشده است
کد مقاله (doi)
زبان مقاله منتشر شده en
موضوعات مقاله منتشر شده
نوع مقاله منتشر شده SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
برگشت به: صفحه اول پایگاه   |   نسخه مرتبط   |   نشریه مرتبط   |   فهرست نشریات