Is drainage necessary in pelvic fracture patients with modified Stoppa approach?
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20210115-00050
- VernacularTitle:引流管应用与否在经改良Stoppa入路治疗骨盆骨折的对比研究
- Author:
Zhongzheng WANG
1
;
Ao LI
;
Ruipeng ZHANG
;
Yingchao YIN
;
Shilun LI
;
Zheming GUO
;
Zhiyong HOU
;
Yingze ZHANG
Author Information
1. 河北医科大学第三医院创伤急救中心，河北省骨科研究所，河北省骨科 生物力学重点实验室，石家庄 050051
- Keywords:
Pelvis;
Fractures, bone;
Drainage;
Comparative effectiveness research
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2021;41(19):1412-1418
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the effect of the placement of a drainage tube on the prognosis of patients with pelvic fractures treated by modified Stoppa approach.Methods:The medical records of patients with pelvic fractures treated with modified Stoppa approach from August 2012 to August 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 43 patients including 32 males and 11 females (mean age 47.6 years, range from16 to 69) were included in the study. According to Young-Burgess classification, there were 12 cases of Lateral Compression type LC-I type; 20 cases of Anterior and Posterior Compression type APC-I type and 11 cases of APC-II type. All patients were treated with modified Stoppa approach to reduce the fracture and fix with plate and screw. According to whether a drainage tube was placed during the operation, 22 cases were placed with a drainage tube (drainage group), and 21 cases were not placed with a drainage tube (non-drainage group). The main observation indicators were the intraoperative conditions, antibiotic application, incision suture removal time, postoperative body temperature change, hospital stay and clinical function (Harris score).Results:Wound infection was not observed in two groups. The duration of antibiotic use in the drainage group was 5.0 d (2.0, 8.0) d, and the non-drainage group was 4.0 d (2.0, 5.0) d, the difference was not statistically significant ( Z=1.161, P=0.924). The hospital stays of the two groups were 18.5 d (15.0, 24.3) d and 19.0 d (13.0, 26.0) d, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant ( Z=0.542, P=0.591). The operation time was 150.2±52.4 min in the drainage group and 138.8±41.2 min in the non-drainage group, and the difference was not statistically significant ( t=0.791, P=0.433). The blood loss in the drainage group was 604.6±387.3 ml, and the non-drainage group was 581.0±275.0 ml. The difference was not statistically significant ( t=0.276, P=0.784). The postoperative body temperature changes of patients in the drainage group and non-drainage group were on day 1 (37.5±0.5 ℃ vs. 37.4±0.4 ℃, t=0.322, P>0.05), day 3 (37.1±0.4 ℃ vs. 37.0±0.4 ℃, t=0.286, P>0.05), day 5 (37.0± 0.3 ℃ vs. 36.8±0.2 ℃, t=2.127, P>0.05), on the 7th day (36.8±0.2 ℃ vs. 36.7±0.4 ℃, t=0.491, P>0.05), the difference was not statistically significant. The time for suture removal of surgical incision was 14.1±0.6 d in the drainage group and 13.9±0.6 d in the non-drainage group, and the difference was not statistically significant ( t=1.072, P=0.329). The Harris scores of the two groups were 96 (91, 100) points for the drainage group and 96 (93, 97) points for the non-drainage group, and the difference was not statistically significant ( Z=0.107, P=0.607). Conclusion:There is no significant influence of the application of drainage on recovery of wound or function for patients with pelvic surgery.
