• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Open Journal of Urology >Functional Outcomes after Triceps Splitting versus Triceps Sparing Approach for Extra-Articular Distal Humerus Fractures
【24h】

Functional Outcomes after Triceps Splitting versus Triceps Sparing Approach for Extra-Articular Distal Humerus Fractures

机译：三头肌劈开与保留三头肌的关节外远端肱骨骨折后的功能结果

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Aim: To compare the functional outcome as well as elbow range of motion (ROM) after triceps splitting and triceps sparing approach for AO/OTA TYPE A distal humerus fractures. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study done at our center between 2011 and 2014. A total of 50 patients presented with extra articular distal humerus fracture (AO/OTA 13 A2, 13A3). Exclusion criteria removed 16 patients from the study while 2 patients died due to medical comorbidities before the final follow up. Out of the remaining 32 patients, they were divided into two groups: triceps splitting (15 patients) and triceps sparing (17 patients). Elbow ROM, along with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire scores, was compared between the two groups. Results: Triceps sparing group had greater elbow flexion (140.0 ± 4.0) compared to triceps splitting group (126.0 ± 10.0) with p < 0.001. Extension contracture was also significantly less in triceps sparing (5.0 ± 6.0) group as compared to triceps splitting group (24.0 ± 8.0) with p < 0.001. However, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of DASH scores between the two groups with DASH score being (24.28 ± 10.14) in the sparing group as compared to (30.41 ± 14.36) in the splitting group with p = 0.169. Conclusion: As compared to triceps splitting approach, triceps sparing approach results in better elbow ROM with less extension contracture, however both approaches result in similar functional outcome.
机译：目标：比较AO / OTA A型肱骨远端骨折的肱三头肌劈开和保留肱三头肌后的功能结局以及肘部活动范围（ROM）。 材料与方法：这是我们在2011年至2014年间进行的一项前瞻性研究。共有50例患者出现肱骨远端关节外骨折（AO / OTA 13 A2、13A3）。排除标准将16名患者从研究中剔除，而2名患者在最终随访之前因医学合并症而死亡。在其余的32位患者中，他们分为两组：肱三头肌劈开（15例）和保留肱三头肌（17例）。比较了两组的肘部ROM以及“臂部，肩部和手部残障”问卷得分。 结果：与三头肌劈开组（126.0±10.0）相比，三头肌保留组的肘部屈曲性更高（140.0±4.0），p <0.001。与三头肌劈开组（24.0±8.0）相比，三头肌保留组（5.0±6.0）的伸展挛缩也明显更少，p <0.001。但是，两组之间的DASH得分在统计学上没有显着差异，保留组的DASH得分为（24.28±10.14），而拆分组的DASH得分为（30.41±14.36），p = 0.169。 结论：与三头肌劈开术相比，三头肌保留方法可产生更好的肘部ROM，伸展挛缩更少，但是两种方法的功能结果相似。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号