Clinical comparison of single-incision and dual-incision approaches for the treatment of distal tibial and fibular fractures: A randomized controlled trial. (12th June 2020)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Clinical comparison of single-incision and dual-incision approaches for the treatment of distal tibial and fibular fractures: A randomized controlled trial. (12th June 2020)
- Main Title:
- Clinical comparison of single-incision and dual-incision approaches for the treatment of distal tibial and fibular fractures: A randomized controlled trial
- Authors:
- An, Lin
Zhang, Jingwei
Ma, Weihu
Zhu, Limei
He, Xianfeng
Ying, Jichong
Zhuang, Yunqiang
Zhuang, Yunqiang
Yu, Tianming - Abstract:
- Purpose: The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the single-incision and dual-incision approaches for the treatment of distal tibial and fibular fractures. Methods: In total, 93 patients were enrolled, and the mean follow-up was 15 months (range 12–19 months). The patients treated for open reduction and internal fixation were randomly classified into two groups based on the approach used: 45 patients were treated using the single-incision approach (group 1) and 48 patients were treated using the dual-incision approach (group 2). In these two groups, operation time, discharge time, postoperative complications, and ankle function evaluations (Olerud–Molander Ankle Score) were compared between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in the mean operation time (98.2 ± 18.5 vs. 103.6 ± 19.3), discharge time (11.1 ± 3.9 vs. 12.5 ± 5.7), overall surgical complication rates (9/45 vs. 15/48), or ankle function between the two groups ( p > 0.05). However, the rate of soft tissue-related complications, such as skin slough, infection, nonunion, and delayed union, was significantly lower in group 1 (5/45) than in group 2 (14/48) ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: The two incision approaches were found to have similar clinical outcomes. However, with regard to soft tissue conservation, the single-incision approach was superior to the dual-incision and maybe a reliable alternative.
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of orthopaedic surgery. Volume 28:Number 2(2020)
- Journal:
- Journal of orthopaedic surgery
- Issue:
- Volume 28:Number 2(2020)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 28, Issue 2 (2020)
- Year:
- 2020
- Volume:
- 28
- Issue:
- 2
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2020-0028-0002-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2020-06-12
- Subjects:
- fibula -- fracture -- incision -- postoperative complication -- tibia
Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals
Orthopedics
Orthopedic surgery
Periodicals
617.3 - Journal URLs:
- https://journals.sagepub.com/home/OSJ ↗
http://www.josonline.org/index.php/JOS ↗
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal-of-orthopaedic-surgery/journal202601 ↗
http://www.uk.sagepub.com/home.nav ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1177/2309499020930305 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1022-5536
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 13513.xml