ABSTRACT
[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2017.04.041.].
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to introduce a novel percutaneous technique for the treatment of pelvic ring injuries using a percutaneous anterior pelvic bridge (PAPB) with K-wire. METHODS: From December 2010 to November 2016, a prospective study of 86 patients with anterior pelvic ring fracture (42 utilizing PAPB with K-wire and 44 utilizing PAPB). Patient data was retrieved from electronic charts. Radiological results were assessed based on the Matta criteria system to evaluate the quality of the reduction and time to union. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Majeed scoring system. Postoperative complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Age, sex, cause of injury, type of fracture, functional recovery, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, union time, Majeed scoring and complications did not differ significantly between the two groups. The quality of the reduction and pain scoring differed between groups (all p-valuesâ¯<â¯0.05). Group A got better reduction and less pain scoring. CONCLUSIONS: The novel percutaneous technique with hybrid fixation using PAPB with K-wire is a successful alternative for the treatment of pelvic ring injuries, which results in better quality of reduction and less pain scoring outcomes comparing to PAPB. May the PAPB + K-wire could provide more stability.
Subject(s)
Bone Wires/adverse effects , Fracture Fixation, Internal/methods , Fractures, Bone/surgery , Pelvic Bones/injuries , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Fracture Fixation, Internal/adverse effects , Fracture Healing , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain/etiology , Pelvic Bones/surgery , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
In the present study we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of baclofen vs tolperisone in spasticity caused by spinal cord injury. A total of 150 patients were enrolled in the present study and were divided into two groups with 75 patients in each group, receiving baclofen or tolperisone, respectively. We used Modified Ashworth Scale, Medical research council scale, Barthel Index, and Coefficient of efficacy to measure clinical efficacy. After 6-week treatment, both groups demonstrated significant improvement in muscle tone, muscle strength and functional outcome (Group I, 1.55 ± 0.053, 2.79 ± 0.032, 59.31 ± 1.32; Group II, 1.57 ± 0.053, 3.04 ± 0.032, 73 ± 1.32 respectively). There was no significant difference regarding improvement in muscle tone and muscle strength between the two groups (Group I, 1.055 ± 0.053 vs Group II, 1.57 ± 0.053; Group I, 2.79 ± 0.032 vs Group II, 3.04 ± 0.032, p > 0.05). However, the improvement in functional outcomes was greater in group II as compared to that in group I (Group I, 59.31 ± 1.32 vs Group II, 73 ± 1.32, p < 0.05). In addition, overall efficacy coefficient was greater for group II as compared to group I (Group I, 3.6 vs Group II, 2.3, p < 0.05). Group I had more side effects compared to Group II. Compared to baclofen, tolperisone offers greater improvement in activities of daily living compared to baclofen.
