| Literature DB >> 33869628 |
Junfei Guo1,2,3, Junpu Zha1,2, Jun Di1,2, Yingchao Yin1,2,3, Zhiyong Hou1,2,3,4, Yingze Zhang1,2,3,4,5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Poller screws may serve as an adjunctive reduction tool and aid fracture reduction while augmented with intramedullary (IM) nailing for treating diaphyseal or metaphyseal fractures of the femur and tibia. However, there is no consistent conclusion about whether the method of using IM nailing augmented with poller screws is more advantageous than using IM nailing alone.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33869628 PMCID: PMC8035000 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6615776
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Illustrations showing the best location placement of the poller screw on the coronal plane. The Poller nail should be placed perpendicular to the deformity plane on the short fracture segment and short cortex close to the intramedullary nail. The short fracture segment and short cortex in proximal tibia fracture (a), distal tibia fracture (b), proximal femur fracture (c), and distal femur fracture (d) are shown.
Figure 2Illustrations showing the best location placement of the poller screw on the sagittal plane. The short fracture segment and short cortex in distal femur fracture with sagittal displacements are shown in the lateral view.
Comparisons of patient demographics and injury-related data between two groups∗.
| Characteristics | Overall ( | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic | ||||
| Age#, years | 48.0 ± 18.6 | 43.9 ± 16.9 | 50.2 ± 19.3 | 0.115 |
| Gender, no. (%) | ||||
| Male | 68 (70.8%) | 27 (81.8%) | 41 (65.1%) | 0.087 |
| Female | 28 (29.2%) | 6 (18.2%) | 22 (34.9%) | |
| BMI group, no. (%) | 0.570 | |||
| Normal (BMI<24 kg/m2) | 38 (39.6%) | 13 (39.4%) | 25 (39.7%) | |
| Overweight (24 ≤ BMI < 28 kg/m2) | 48 (50.0%) | 18 (54.5%) | 30 (47.6%) | |
| Obesity (BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2) | 10 (10.4%) | 2 (6.1%) | 8 (12.75) | |
| Injury-related data | ||||
| Fracture location, no. (%) | 0.223 | |||
| Proximal femur | 36 (37.5%) | 8 (24.2%) | 28 (44.4%) | |
| Distal femur | 25 (26.0%) | 9 (27.3%) | 16 (25.4%) | |
| Proximal tibia | 13 (13.5%) | 6 (18.2%) | 7 (11.1%) | |
| Distal tibia | 22 (23.0%) | 10 (30.3%) | 12 (19.1%) | |
| Fracture classification, no. (%) | ||||
| Femur | 0.436 | |||
| A | 40 (65.6%) | 9 (52.9%) | 31 (70.5%) | |
| B | 18 (29.5%) | 7 (41.2%) | 11 (25.0%) | |
| C | 3 (4.9%) | 1 (5.9%) | 2 (4.5%) | |
| Tibia | 0.686 | |||
| A | 24 (68.6%) | 11 (68.8%) | 13 (68.4%) | |
| B | 8 (22.9%) | 3 (18.8%) | 5 (26.3%) | |
| C | 3 (8.5%) | 2 (12.4%) | 1 (5.3%) | |
| Injury mechanism, no. (%) | 0.408 | |||
| Low-energy fracture | 55 (57.3%) | 17 (51.5%) | 38 (60.3%) | |
| High-energy fracture | 41 (42.7%) | 16 (48.5%) | 25 (39.7%) |
∗The differences between the groups were not statistically significant for all parameters. #The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation.
Comparisons of operation-related data and outcomes between two groups.
| Characteristics | Overall ( | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation-related data | ||||
| ASA grade, no. (%) | 0.833 | |||
| I | 45 (46.9%) | 15 (45.4%) | 30 (47.6%) | |
| II | 32 (33.3%) | 12 (36.4%) | 20 (31.7%) | |
| III | 12 (12.5%) | 3 (9.1%) | 9 (14.3%) | |
| IV | 7 (7.3%) | 3 (9.1%) | 4 (6.4%) | |
| Duration of operation#, min | 137.9 ± 29.8 | 139.1 ± 31.0 | 137.2 ± 29.4 | 0.772 |
| Poller screw time#, min | NA | 26.2 ± 5.1 | NA | |
| Method of anesthesia, no. (%) | 0.978 | |||
| General anesthesia | 38 (39.6%) | 13 (39.4%) | 25 (39.7%) | |
| Regional anesthesia | 58 (60.4%) | 20 (60.6%) | 38 (60.3%) | |
| Volume of intraoperative hemorrhage#, mL | 389.3 ± 225.1 | 375.2 ± 243.1 | 396.8 ± 216.8 | 0.658 |
| Outcomes | ||||
| Fracture healing time#, weeks | 19.7 ± 3.8 | 18.3 ± 4.8 | 24.3 ± 3.0 | 0.023∗ |
| Nonunion, no. (%) | 0.048∗ | |||
| Yes | 8 (8.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (12.7%) | |
| No | 88 (91.7%) | 33 (100.0%) | 55 (87.3%) | |
| Malunion, no. (%) | 0.031∗ | |||
| Yes | 13 (13.5%) | 1 (3.0%) | 12 (19.0%) | |
| No | 83 (86.5%) | 32 (97.0%) | 51 (81.0%) | |
| Infection, no. (%) | ||||
| Superficial infection | 0.711 | |||
| Yes | 8 (8.3%) | 2 (6.1%) | 6 (9.5%) | |
| No | 88 (91.7%) | 31 (93.9%) | 57 (90.5%) | |
| Deep infection | 0.544 | |||
| Yes | 2 (2.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (3.2%) | |
| No | 94 (97.9%) | 33 (100.0%) | 61 (96.8%) | |
| Secondary surgical procedures | 0.031∗ | |||
| Yes | 13 (13.5%) | 1 (3.0%) | 12 (19.0%) | |
| No | 83 (86.5%) | 32 (97.0%) | 51 (81.0%) |
#The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation. ∗p < 0.05, statistical significance.