| Literature DB >> 35436916 |
Marcell Varga1, Gergő Józsa2, Dániel Hanna2, Máté Tóth3, Bence Hajnal4, Zsófia Krupa4, Tamás Kassai5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures are very common in paediatric patients. Severely displaced fractures may require surgical intervention. The gold standard surgical method is percutaneous K-wire osteosynthesis followed by immobilisation. Metal implants can be removed with a second intervention; however, these extra procedures can cause further complications. Several studies confirm the benefits of bioabsorbable implants for paediatric patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the complication rates of displaced distal metaphyseal radius (AO 23r-M/3.1) and forearm (AO 23-M/3.1) fractures in children operated on with K-wires versus a novel technique with bioresorbable implants.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35436916 PMCID: PMC9016993 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05305-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Fig. 1Distal forearm fracture of a 8 years old boy. The fracture was stabilized with a K-wire
Fig. 2Temporary osteosynthesis with an elastic nail. a Schematic illustration b: intraoperative fluoroscopic picture c: short PLGA and titanium elastic nails
Fig. 3Insertion of the biodegradable Bioretec® Activa Pin™ as an intramedullary implant. a Schematic drawing b: intraoperative picture, insertion of the implant c: fluoroscopic view– the PLGA implant is almost invisible
Characteristics of the patients enrolled in the study
| K-wire group I. ( | Bioresorbable group ( | K-wire group II. ( | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average age, years (mean ± standard deviation) | 8.125 ± 2.334 | 8.067 ± 2.586 | 8.963 ± 2.638 | No difference (Kruskal–Wallis test, |
| Sex ratio (Number of patients) (male: female) | 3 (30:10) | 1.7273 (19:11) | 2.4286 (17:7) | No difference (Chi squared test, |
| Right | 18 (45) | 16 (53.3333) | N/D | No difference (Chi squared test, |
| Left | 22 (55) | 14 (46.6667) | N/D | |
| Isolated radius fractures) | 13 | 6 | 7 | No difference (Chi squared test, |
| Complete forearm fractures | 27 | 24 | 17 | |
Return hospital visits in the first six weeks | 4.05 ± 1.3 | 3.067 ± 0.254 | 6.074 ± 1.269 | Significant difference (Kruskal–Wallis test, |
Complications in the different groups
| Complications (No, %) | KWI Group | BR Group | KWII. Group |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 (25) | 2 (6.6667) | 10 (41.6667) | |
| Skin irritation | 5 (12.5) | 0 | 1 (4.1667) |
| Dislocation (within limits of remodelling) | 5 (12.5) | 2 (6.6667) | 9 (37.5) |
| 2 (5) | 0 | 0 | |
| Dislocation (requiring intervention) | 1 (2.5) | 0 | 0 |
| Extensor pollicis longus injury (related to primary intervention) | 1 (2.5) | 0 | 0 |
| 28 (70) | 28 (93.3333) | 14 (58.3333) |
Fig. 4Distal forearm fracture of a 7-years old boy treated with Activa Pin™ a: shortened and displaced unstable distal metaphyseal fracture b: X-rays made in the postoperative first day c: X-rays made 24 months after surgery
Fig. 5Distal forearm fracture of a 11-years old boy treated with Activa Pin™ a: shortened and displaced unstable distal meta-diaphyseal fracture b: X-rays made after 12 weeks of surgery c: X-rays made 24 months after surgery
Fig. 6MRI image after PLGA implant placement a: half a year after the surgery, the implant is clearly visible (arrow) b: two years later only minimal traces of the implant are visible (arrowhead). There is no sign of growth disturbance