| Literature DB >> 27233837 |
Yongzeng Feng1, Jianjun Hong2, Xiaoshan Guo2, Chuangxin Lin3, Wei Ling1, Lifeng Zhang1, Gang Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to introduce a new percutaneous technique for the treatment of traumatic pubic symphysis diastasis using a TightRope and external fixator. A comparison between this technique and percutaneous fixation using a cannulated screw was performed.Entities:
Keywords: Cannulated screw; Comparative study; External fixation; Percutaneous reduction; Symphysis pubis diastasis; TightRope fixation
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27233837 PMCID: PMC4882846 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0397-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1TightRope (Arthrex) device consists of a circular-shaped button and an oblong-shaped button. The buttons are connected with FiberWire threads
Fig. 2A male patient suffered pubic symphysis diastasis in a road traffic accident. a Preoperative anteroposterior radiograph. b Three-dimensional CT. c Reduction is maintained using pointed reduction clamps. d The insertion and exertion of the guide wire are located using a drill guide
Fig. 3a A tunnel is created using a cannulated drill bit introduced over the guide wire. b The oblong-shaped button is passed through the tunnel. c A hollow tube was used across the traction thread. d The free ends of the FiberWire suture are tightened
Fig. 4Postoperative radiographs. a Immediately after surgery. b One year after surgery
Patient characteristics and surgical details of the two groups (x ± s)
| Group A | Group B |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Age (year) | 32.5 ± 6.2 | 33.2 ± 5.8 | 0.781 |
| Sex (m/f) | 7/3 | 11/5 | 1.000 |
| Injury mechanism ( | 1.000 | ||
| Traffic accident | 8 | 13 | |
| Crushing | 2 | 3 | |
| Time to operation (day) | 4.8 ± 2.9 | 4.1 ± 3.0 | 0.580 |
| Operative time (min) | 48.5 ± 9.4 | 27.3 ± 5.1 | 0.000 |
| Width of pubic symphysis (mm) | |||
| Preoperation | 40.0 ± 12.3 | 41.4 ± 10.4 | 0.813 |
| Immediately postoperation | 4.1 ± 0.6* | 4.5 ± 0.7** | 0.118 |
| Final follow-up | 4.3 ± 0.5*** | 4.7 ± 0.7**** | 0.113 |
| Complications ( | |||
| Infection | 1 | 0 | 0.385 |
| Fixation failure | 1 | 3 | 1.000 |
| Revision surgery | 0 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Satisfaction (MVAS) | 8.1 ± 1.2 | 8.4 ± 1.0 | 0.538 |
| Majeed score ( | 0.897 | ||
| Excellent (>85) | 7 | 11 | |
| Good (70–84) | 3 | 4 | |
| Fair (55–69) | 0 | 1 | |
| Poor (<55) | 0 | 0 |
MVAS modified visual analog scale
*p = 0.000; **p = 0.000; ***p = 0.419; ****p = 0.445
Detailed scores according to the Majeed scoring system at the final follow-up
| Group/no. | Pain | Sitting | Sexual intercourse | Walking | Work | Total | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | |||||||
| 1 | 30 | 8 | 4 | 34 | 16 | 92 | Excellent |
| 2 | 30 | 10 | 4 | 36 | 16 | 96 | Excellent |
| 3 | 25 | 8 | 3 | 34 | 16 | 86 | Excellent |
| 4 | 25 | 12 | 3 | 28 | 16 | 84 | Good |
| 5 | 30 | 10 | 4 | 34 | 16 | 96 | Excellent |
| 6 | 20 | 6 | 4 | 28 | 16 | 74 | Good |
| 7 | 25 | 8 | 4 | 32 | 20 | 89 | Excellent |
| 8 | 25 | 6 | 3 | 32 | 16 | 82 | Good |
| 9 | 30 | 10 | 4 | 34 | 20 | 98 | Excellent |
| 10 | 25 | 10 | 4 | 34 | 20 | 93 | Excellent |
| B | |||||||
| 1 | 25 | 8 | 4 | 32 | 20 | 89 | Excellent |
| 2 | 25 | 10 | 4 | 34 | 20 | 93 | Excellent |
| 3 | 30 | 10 | 4 | 36 | 16 | 96 | Excellent |
| 4 | 20 | 8 | 4 | 34 | 16 | 82 | Good |
| 5 | 25 | 10 | 4 | 32 | 20 | 91 | Excellent |
| 6 | 20 | 6 | 4 | 28 | 16 | 74 | Good |
| 7 | 25 | 8 | 3 | 32 | 12 | 80 | Good |
| 8 | 25 | 10 | 4 | 36 | 20 | 95 | Excellent |
| 9 | 25 | 8 | 4 | 30 | 16 | 83 | Good |
| 10 | 30 | 8 | 4 | 36 | 20 | 98 | Excellent |
| 11 | 20 | 6 | 3 | 28 | 12 | 69 | Fair |
| 12 | 25 | 10 | 4 | 30 | 20 | 89 | Excellent |
| 13 | 30 | 10 | 4 | 34 | 16 | 94 | Excellent |
| 14 | 30 | 10 | 4 | 36 | 12 | 92 | Excellent |
| 15 | 25 | 10 | 4 | 36 | 20 | 95 | Excellent |
| 16 | 25 | 8 | 4 | 36 | 16 | 89 | Excellent |