Internal fixation with one-hole microplate for the treatment of collateral ligament injuries of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb combined with fracture / 中国骨伤

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To study clinical effects of one-hole microplate internal fixation for the treatment of collateral ligament injuries of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb combined with fracture.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Twenty-two patients (16 males, 6 females) with collateral ligament injuries of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb combined fracture were treated with one-hole microplate internal fixation. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 53 years old with a mean age of 28.5 years old. The duration from injury to surgery ranged from 2 hours to 2 months, and the mean time was 6 days. All the patients had collateral ligament injuries combined with fracture of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb. Thirteen patients had injuries in the right hand and 9 patients had injuries in the left hand. There were 18 cases of closed wound and 4 cases of open wound. Eighteen patients had fresh injuries (< 2 weeks) and 4 had old injuries (> 2 weeks). Sixteen patients had injuries in the ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb combined with fracture, 6 patients had radial collateral ligament injuries of the thumb combined with fracture, 4 cases of which were complicated with injuries of abductor pollicis brevis and the end of the flexor pollicis brevis tender. The size of the avulsed fragment was about 3.0 mm x 4.0 mm to 6.0 mm x 7.0 mm.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The incisions of 22 patients healed by first intention. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 5 years old,with an average of 2.5 years old. The thumb function was evaluated by Saetta and other evaluation criteria, and 20 patients got an excellent result and 2 good.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The application of one-hole microplate internal fixation in treating collateral ligament injuries with fracture of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb is an effective method.</p>

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation versus its combination with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation for the treatment of single segmental lower lumbar vertebra diseases / 中国骨伤

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the advantages and disadvantages of unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion in treating single segmental lower lumbar vertebra diseases.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Sixty-two patients with single segmental lower lumbar vertebra disease who received treatment between January 2008 and June 2009. These patients were consisted of 16 males and 46 females, ranging in age from 27 to 72 years old, with a mean age of 51.6 years old. Among these patients, lumbar degenerative disease had in 22 patients, recurrence of lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion in 13 patients, lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion accompany with spinal canal stenosis in 12 patients, massive lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion in 5 patients and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with degree I in 10 patients. The lesions occurred at L3,4 segment in 5 patients, at L4,5 segment in 42 patients, and at L5S1 segment in 15 patients. Thirty patients underwent unilateral pedicle screw fixation (unilateral screw fixation group, group A) and thirty-two patients received unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation (bilateral screw fixation group, group B). Lumbar interbody fusion with intervertebral cages was also performed in all patients. Incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound drainage were compared between two groups. Loosening or breakage of internal fixations, displacement of intervertebral cages and interbody fusion conditions were observed in each group. Preoperative and postoperative intervertebral height, coronal and sagittal Cobb angle and wound pain at 72 h after operation were compared between two groups. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system was used to evaluate the cinical effects.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Neither wound infection, skin necrosis, nerve root or cauda equia injury, nor worsened neurological dysfunction in the lower limb occurred in each group. There were no significant differences in incision length, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound drainage between two groups. The operation time in group A was significantly shorter than that of group B (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in visual analogue scale value of the wound pain at postoperative 72 h between two groups (P > 0.05). All patients were followed up for 12-48 months,with a mean of 27.5 months. The intervertebral height of all patients had obviously recovered at 5 days after operation, furthermore, at the final follow-up, it still had well maintained. During follow-up, no pedicle screw and/or translaminar facet screw loosening, displacement or breakage and displacement of intervertebral cages were found. The lumbar interbody fusion rate was 96.7% and 96.9% in group A and group B, respectively, and there was no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). JOA score of all patients got obviously improved after operation (P < 0.05) and there was no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Both unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion have advantages of small incision, minimal invasion, simple operation, reliable stability, high interbody fusion rate,rapid recovery, encouraging clinical effects and less complications. Compared with unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation, the operation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation is simpler and can avoid using special equipments. Therefore, unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion can be used in treating single-segmental lower lumbar vertebra diseases under the precondition of strictly grasping indications for surgery and improving surgical skills.</p>

Two different fixation methods combined with lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of two-level lumbar vertebra diseases: a clinical comparison study / 中国骨伤

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To investigate the advantages and disadvantages of unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation and interbody fusion with cages in the treatment of two-level lumbar vertebra diseases, by comparing bilateral pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion with cages.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Forty-nine patients with two-level lumbar diseases who received treatments from June 2009 to December 2011 were included in this study. Among these patients, 23 patients received unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation and interbody fusion with cages (combined fixation group) and the remaining 26 patients underwent bilateral pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion with cages (bilateral fixation group). These patients consisted of 17 males and 32 females, ranging in age from 29 to 68 years old. Among these patients, lumbar intervertebral disc herniation accompanied by the spinal canal stenosis was found in 29 patients, degenerative lumbar disc diseases in 17 patients and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (degree I) in 3 patients. The lesions occurred at L2,3 and L3,4 segments in 1 patient, at L3,4 and L4,5 segments in 30 patients, and at L4,5 segment and L5S1 segment in 18 patients. Wound length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound drainage were compared between two groups. Intervertebral space height in the lesioned segment before and during surgery and at the latest follow up was also compared between two groups. Before surgery and at the latest follow-up, the Cobb angle of the coronal plane and sagittal plane of the lumbar spine, loosening or breakage of internal fixations, the dislocation of intervertebral cages, and interbody fusion were all evaluated in each group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure lumbar incision pain. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system was used to evaluate the function before surgery and at the latest follow-up.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>No wound infection or skin necrosis was observed after surgery in all patients. No cerebrospinal fluid leakage, nerve root injury, cauda equia injury or worsened neural function in the lower limb occurred in all patients during and after surgery. Wound length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative wound drainage in the combined fixation group were superior to those in the bilateral fixation group. At postoperative 72 hours, the VAS score in the combined fixation group (1 to 4 points, mean 2.35±1.20) was significantly lower than that in the bilateral fixation group (2 to 5 points, mean 3.11±1.00; P<0.05). All the patients were followed up for 12 to 48 months, with a mean of 29 months. After surgery, intervertebral space height was well recovered in each patient and it was well maintained at the latest follow-up, and there was no significant difference between two groups (P>0.05). During follow-up, pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw loosening, dislocation or breakage and dislocation of intervertebral cages were all not found. At the latest follow-up, the Cobb angle of the coronal plane and sagittal plane of the lumbar spine was obviously improved and was not significantly different between two groups (P>0.05). The lumbar interbody fusion rate was 93.5% and 96.2% in the combined fixation group and bilateral fixation group, respectively, and there was no significant difference between them (P>0.05). There was a significant difference in JOA score between before surgery and at the latest follow-up in each patient (P<0.05), and at the latest follow-up, significant difference in JOA score was found between two groups (P<0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Compared to bilateral pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion with cages, unilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion with cages shows advantages including small skin incision, minimal invasion, ease of operation, highly reliable stability, high interbody fusion rate, rapid recovery in the treatment of two-level lumbar vertebra diseases and therefore can be preferred as a treatment method of this disease.</p>