Percutaneous cannulated screws vs. MIS plate fixation for displaced IA calcaneal fractures .
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2016;4(24):7 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Jul 15;17(1):28896 patients with a displaced, intraarticular calcaneal fracture were randomized to either a percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation or a minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach for plate and screw fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare functional and radiological outcomes between the two treatment options over a 24-month follow-up. American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scores overall did not significantly differ between groups, though the subscales of sagittal motion and hindfoot motion significantly favoured the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group. With the exception of calcaneal width, groups did not significantly differ in radiographic parameters, either.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Ja = 1
Ungewiss = 0.5
Nicht relevant = 0
Nein = 0
Die Bewertung der Berichtskriterien bewertet die Transparenz, mit der die Autoren die methodischen und studienspezifischen Merkmale der Studie in der Veröffentlichung angeben. Die Bewertung ist in fünf Kategorien unterteilt, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.
4/4
Randomization
2/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
3/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Der Fragilitätsindex ist ein Instrument, das bei der Interpretation signifikanter Ergebnisse hilft und ein Maß für die Stärke eines Ergebnisses liefert. Der Fragilitätsindex gibt die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse an, die zu einem dichotomen Ergebnis hinzugefügt werden müssen, damit das Ergebnis nicht mehr signifikant ist. Eine kleine Zahl steht für ein schwächeres Ergebnis und eine große Zahl für ein stärkeres Ergebnis.
Warum wurde diese Studie jetzt benötigt?
Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is often used in the management of displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures. The incidence of postoperative wound-related complications observed with the use of a full-exposure lateral approach has led to the development of alternative strategies. One such method is a minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach, which has demonstrated excellent results in previous trials. A percutaneous reduction, cannulated screw fixation method augmented with a calcium sulfate cement-graft has also been recently developed and demonstrated positive results compared to traditional ORIF. Nevertheless, there has yet to be a comparison between the percutaneous reduction cannulated screw fixation method and minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach to plate fixation.
Was war die wichtigste Forschungsfrage?
In the operative management of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures, are there any significant differences in functional and radiological outcome between percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation with a calcium sulfate cement-graft versus plate fixation via a minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach when assessed over a 24-month follow-up?
- At final follow-up, mean total AOFAS scores did not significantly differ between the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group (84.6+/-6.6) and the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group (82.5+/-5.7) (p>0.05). Scores on the sagittal motion and hindfoot motion subscores of the AOFAS were significantly higher in the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group compared to the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group (p=0.037 and 0.021, respectively).
- The rate of "good to excellent" outcome on the AOFAS score did not significantly differ overall between the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group (34/42) and the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group (34/38) (p=0.286). When considering the rate of "good to excellent" outcome in only Sanders type III fracture, the rate was significantly lower in the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group (2/10) compared to the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group (6/8) (p=0.020).
- No significant differences between groups at final follow-up were observed for Bohler's angle (p=0.425), Gissanes angle (p=0.724), calcaneal height (p=0.318), or calcaneal length (p=0.059). Calcaneal width was significantly smaller in the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group (33.4+/-1.9mm) compared to the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group (35.3+/-2.4).
- The overall incidence of complications was significantly lower in the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw group (3; 7.1%) compared to the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group (11; 28.9%) (p=0.01). Complications in the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group included 1 superficial infection and 2 cases of peroneus brevis injury. Complications in the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group included 3 superficial infections, 2 deep infections, 1 hematoma, 1 case of wound edge necrosis, 2 sural nerve injuries, and 2 cases of peroneus brevis injury.
- Operative time was significantly shorter in the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group (39.7+/-7.6min) compared to the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group (64.2+/-8.6) (p<0.001).
Was sollte ich mir besonders merken?
In the management of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures, overall functional outcome and radiographic outcome after 2 years, with the exception of calcaneal width, were similar between percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation with a calcium sulfate cement bone graft, and plate fixation via a minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach. The recovery of calcaneal width was better following minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach. The percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation group was observed to demonstrate an increased range of motion postoperatively, a lower incidence of complications, and shorter operative time compared to the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach group.
Wie wird sich dies auf die Behandlung meiner Patienten auswirken?
The results of this study suggest that operative management through percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation with a calcium sulfate cement bone graft may offer excellent and similar short-term results when compared to plate fixation via a minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach in the management of displaced, intra-articular calcaneal fractures. A shorter procedure time and lower risk of complications may also be attractive advantages to the percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation method. Nonetheless, there was some evidence to suggest that functional outcome in Sanders type III fractures may not be recovered as adequately in cases managed with percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation when compared to the sinus tarsi, plate fixation method. Therefore, there could be the possibility that plate fixation through the minimally invasive sinus tarsi approach may be more appropriately reserved for cases of more severe fracture. Subsequent studies enrolling only specific classifications of fractures would be needed to support this recommendation, however.
HAFTUNGSAUSSCHLUSS
Der Inhalt dieser Seite dient nur zu Informationszwecken und ist nicht als Ersatz für professionelle medizinische Beratung, Diagnose oder Behandlung gedacht. Wenn Sie eine medizinische Behandlung benötigen, wenden Sie sich immer an Ihren Arzt oder suchen Sie die nächstgelegene Notaufnahme auf. Die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte, die von den Personen auf dieser Seite geäußert werden, spiegeln nicht die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte von OrthoEvidence wider.
0 von 4 monatliche KOSTENLOSE Artikel freigeschaltet
