scholarly journals Risk Factors of Elbow Stiffness After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of the Terrible Triad of the Elbow Joint

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 530-536
Author(s):  
Xiao He ◽  
Quan Fen ◽  
Jiarui Yang ◽  
Yutian Lei ◽  
Lisong Heng ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 125 ◽  
pp. e1069-e1073
Author(s):  
Ivan B. Ye ◽  
Steven J. Girdler ◽  
Zoe B. Cheung ◽  
Samuel J. White ◽  
William A. Ranson ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 1089-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Buda ◽  
Shaun Kink ◽  
Ruben Stavenuiter ◽  
Catharina Noortje Hagemeijer ◽  
Bonnie Chien ◽  
...  

Background: Controversy persists as to whether Lisfranc injuries are best treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus primary arthrodesis (PA). Reoperation rates certainly influence this debate, but prior studies are often confounded by inclusion of hardware removal as a complication rather than as a planned, staged procedure inherent to ORIF. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether reoperation rates, excluding planned hardware removal, differ between ORIF and PA. A secondary aim was to evaluate patient risk factors associated with reoperation after operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Methods: Between July 1991 and July 2016, adult patients who sustained closed, isolated Lisfranc injuries with or without fractures and who underwent ORIF or PA with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were analyzed. Reoperation rates for reasons other than planned hardware removal were examined, as were patient risk factors predictive of reoperation. Two hundred seventeen patients met enrollment criteria (mean follow-up, 62.5 ± 43.1 months; range, 12-184), of which 163 (75.1%) underwent ORIF and 54 (24.9%) underwent PA. Results: Overall and including planned procedures, patients treated with ORIF had a significantly higher rate of return to the operation room (75.5%) as compared to those in the PA group (31.5%, P < .001). When excluding planned hardware removal, however, there was no difference in reoperation rates between the 2 groups (29.5% in the ORIF group and 29.6% in the PA group, P = 1). Risk factors correlating with unplanned return to the operation room included deep infection ( P = .009-.001), delayed wound healing ( P = .008), and high-energy trauma ( P = .01). Conclusion: When excluding planned removal of hardware, patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with ORIF did not demonstrate a higher rate of reoperation compared with those undergoing PA. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study


Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (7) ◽  
pp. e9901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaning Sun ◽  
Huijuan Wang ◽  
Yuchao Tang ◽  
Haitao Zhao ◽  
Shiji Qin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document