Cargando…

A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures

INTRODUCTION: Hoffa fractures are rare and difficult to treat for orthopaedic surgeons. The mechanism of injury of Hoffa fracture is still unknown and the operation approch and fixation method are still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical effect between two fixation metho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Yi, Li, Heng, Yang, Hong-hang, Pan, Zhi-jun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4960084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27512623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2861-6
_version_ 1782444477465493504
author Xu, Yi
Li, Heng
Yang, Hong-hang
Pan, Zhi-jun
author_facet Xu, Yi
Li, Heng
Yang, Hong-hang
Pan, Zhi-jun
author_sort Xu, Yi
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Hoffa fractures are rare and difficult to treat for orthopaedic surgeons. The mechanism of injury of Hoffa fracture is still unknown and the operation approch and fixation method are still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical effect between two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures. CASE DESCRIPTION: From April 2004 to July 2013, we treated eleven patients (new method group) with Hoffa fracture using the new fixation method (fixed with intercondylar screw and crossed screws) and sixteen patients (traditional method group) using the traditional fixation method (fixed with anteroposteriorly placed screws). All documents from their admission until the last followup in December 2015 were reviewed, data regarding complications collected and results were evaluated using the Knee Society Score. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: After an average follow-up period of 27.1 months (range 24–32 months), all fractures had healed. The average healing time of the new method group was 11.36 weeks (range 9–14 weeks) and the average healing time of the traditional method group was 11.88 weeks (range 9–14 weeks). According to the Knee Society Score, the average score of the new method group was 176.36 points (range 125–199 points), and the average score of the traditional method group was 171.19 points (range 148–197 points). Statistical analysis (t test, t = 0.76, P > 0.05) showed that the difference of both the healing time (t test, t = 0.94, P > 0.05) and the score between these two groups was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the new fixation method for Hoffa fracture is as effective as the traditional method and may provide a new way to treat Hoffa fractures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4960084
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49600842016-08-10 A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures Xu, Yi Li, Heng Yang, Hong-hang Pan, Zhi-jun Springerplus Case Study INTRODUCTION: Hoffa fractures are rare and difficult to treat for orthopaedic surgeons. The mechanism of injury of Hoffa fracture is still unknown and the operation approch and fixation method are still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical effect between two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures. CASE DESCRIPTION: From April 2004 to July 2013, we treated eleven patients (new method group) with Hoffa fracture using the new fixation method (fixed with intercondylar screw and crossed screws) and sixteen patients (traditional method group) using the traditional fixation method (fixed with anteroposteriorly placed screws). All documents from their admission until the last followup in December 2015 were reviewed, data regarding complications collected and results were evaluated using the Knee Society Score. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION: After an average follow-up period of 27.1 months (range 24–32 months), all fractures had healed. The average healing time of the new method group was 11.36 weeks (range 9–14 weeks) and the average healing time of the traditional method group was 11.88 weeks (range 9–14 weeks). According to the Knee Society Score, the average score of the new method group was 176.36 points (range 125–199 points), and the average score of the traditional method group was 171.19 points (range 148–197 points). Statistical analysis (t test, t = 0.76, P > 0.05) showed that the difference of both the healing time (t test, t = 0.94, P > 0.05) and the score between these two groups was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the new fixation method for Hoffa fracture is as effective as the traditional method and may provide a new way to treat Hoffa fractures. Springer International Publishing 2016-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4960084/ /pubmed/27512623 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2861-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Case Study
Xu, Yi
Li, Heng
Yang, Hong-hang
Pan, Zhi-jun
A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures
title A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures
title_full A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures
title_fullStr A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures
title_short A comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on Hoffa fractures
title_sort comparison of the clinical effect of two fixation methods on hoffa fractures
topic Case Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4960084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27512623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2861-6
work_keys_str_mv AT xuyi acomparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures
AT liheng acomparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures
AT yanghonghang acomparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures
AT panzhijun acomparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures
AT xuyi comparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures
AT liheng comparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures
AT yanghonghang comparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures
AT panzhijun comparisonoftheclinicaleffectoftwofixationmethodsonhoffafractures