• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Hand >Management of Intra-Articular Distal Radius Fractures: Volar or Dorsal Locking Plate—Which Has Fewer Complications?
【24h】

Management of Intra-Articular Distal Radius Fractures: Volar or Dorsal Locking Plate—Which Has Fewer Complications?

机译：关节内远端Rad骨骨折的处理：掌侧或背侧锁定板-并发症较少？

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

摘要

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and complications of volar and dorsal plating for the management of intra-articular distal radius fractures, with special regard to indications for dorsal plating. Furthermore, we examine the rationale for choosing dorsal plating and its frequency of use. Methods: Clinical assessments included range of motion measurements at the wrist; grip strength; the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and the Gartland and Werley score. Clinical results were compared with those achieved using a volarly placed locking plate system. According to Lutsky’s plate theory, the rationale for choosing dorsal plating was based on 4 types of pathologic fractures. Results: Of 112 patients, 38 patients were treated with open reduction internal fixation via a dorsal approach and 68 patients were treated using a volar approach. Except for wrist flexion, there were no other statistical differences in the clinical results between groups for both subjective and objective parameters. There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rates between the volar and dorsal plated groups. One serious complication occurred after volar plating. The most common reason for choosing dorsal plating was irreducible dorsal die-punch fractures. Conclusions: The treatment of displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures with a dorsally versus a volarly placed interlocking plate system demonstrated similar clinical results. Postoperative complications were not readily observed in the patients treated with a dorsal locking plate. Certain fracture patterns are more appropriately stabilized using a dorsal plate fixation.
机译：背景：本研究的目的是比较掌侧和背侧钢板治疗关节内distal骨远端骨折的功能结局和并发症，并特别考虑背侧钢板的适应症。此外，我们研究了选择背板的基本原理及其使用频率。方法：临床评估包括手腕的运动测量范围;握力;手臂，肩膀和手部快速残疾评分;以及Gartland和Werley得分。将临床结果与使用掌侧锁定板系统获得的结果进行比较。根据卢茨基的板理论，选择背板的理由是基于4种病理性骨折。结果：在112例患者中，有38例通过背侧入路行切开复位内固定术，其中68例采用掌侧入路术。除腕部屈曲外，各组之间主观和客观参数的临床结果无其他统计学差异。掌侧和背侧钢板组的并发症发生率无统计学差异。掌壁置入后发生1例严重并发症。选择背板的最常见原因是不可减少的背冲模骨折。结论：采用背侧与掌侧放置的互锁钢板系统治疗移位的intra骨远端distal骨骨折显示出相似的临床结果。在背锁钢板治疗的患者中不容易观察到术后并发症。使用背板固定可以更适当地稳定某些骨折类型。

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