Cargando…
External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of type III pilon fractures remains controversial. Hence, we performed this study to investigate whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is superior to external fixations combined with limited internal fixations (EFLIF). MATERIAL/METHODS: From January 20...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
International Scientific Literature, Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26050786 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.893289 |
_version_ | 1782376973054509056 |
---|---|
author | Guo, Yongzhi Tong, Liangyong Li, Shaoguang Liu, Zhi |
author_facet | Guo, Yongzhi Tong, Liangyong Li, Shaoguang Liu, Zhi |
author_sort | Guo, Yongzhi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of type III pilon fractures remains controversial. Hence, we performed this study to investigate whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is superior to external fixations combined with limited internal fixations (EFLIF). MATERIAL/METHODS: From January 2012 to October 2013, a total of 78 patients were included. Twenty-six patients underwent EFLIF and 52 patients underwent ORIF. All subjects were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. All outcomes and complications were recorded. RESULTS: No statistical differences were observed in Mazur score or ROM between the 2 groups. There were significant differences between the 2 groups in hospital stay (P<0.001), reduction results (P=0.019), screw loosening (P=0.025), and traumatic arthritis (P=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Similar functional outcomes were achieved in EFLIF and ORIF groups. Due to several limitations of this study, a well-designed randomized controlled trial involving more patients and long-term follow-up is needed to find an optimal treatment protocol. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4471850 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | International Scientific Literature, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44718502015-06-29 External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures Guo, Yongzhi Tong, Liangyong Li, Shaoguang Liu, Zhi Med Sci Monit Clinical Research BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of type III pilon fractures remains controversial. Hence, we performed this study to investigate whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is superior to external fixations combined with limited internal fixations (EFLIF). MATERIAL/METHODS: From January 2012 to October 2013, a total of 78 patients were included. Twenty-six patients underwent EFLIF and 52 patients underwent ORIF. All subjects were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. All outcomes and complications were recorded. RESULTS: No statistical differences were observed in Mazur score or ROM between the 2 groups. There were significant differences between the 2 groups in hospital stay (P<0.001), reduction results (P=0.019), screw loosening (P=0.025), and traumatic arthritis (P=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Similar functional outcomes were achieved in EFLIF and ORIF groups. Due to several limitations of this study, a well-designed randomized controlled trial involving more patients and long-term follow-up is needed to find an optimal treatment protocol. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2015-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4471850/ /pubmed/26050786 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.893289 Text en © Med Sci Monit, 2015 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License |
spellingShingle | Clinical Research Guo, Yongzhi Tong, Liangyong Li, Shaoguang Liu, Zhi External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures |
title | External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures |
title_full | External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures |
title_fullStr | External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures |
title_full_unstemmed | External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures |
title_short | External Fixation combined with Limited Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Treating Ruedi-Allgower Type III Pilon Fractures |
title_sort | external fixation combined with limited internal fixation versus open reduction internal fixation for treating ruedi-allgower type iii pilon fractures |
topic | Clinical Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26050786 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.893289 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guoyongzhi externalfixationcombinedwithlimitedinternalfixationversusopenreductioninternalfixationfortreatingruediallgowertypeiiipilonfractures AT tongliangyong externalfixationcombinedwithlimitedinternalfixationversusopenreductioninternalfixationfortreatingruediallgowertypeiiipilonfractures AT lishaoguang externalfixationcombinedwithlimitedinternalfixationversusopenreductioninternalfixationfortreatingruediallgowertypeiiipilonfractures AT liuzhi externalfixationcombinedwithlimitedinternalfixationversusopenreductioninternalfixationfortreatingruediallgowertypeiiipilonfractures |