Background Although use of a dynamic hip screw (DHS) for stable intertrochanteric hip fracture fixation has been successfully applied in fracture healing for more than 20 years, DHS fixation on unstable intertrochanteric fractures still has a high failure rate, especially in patients with osteoporosis. Although the wire fixation is usually incorporated with orthopedic device to treat fracture, the wiring techniques are developed through experiences. Thus, this study is objective to investigate the biomechanical property of different wire fixation methods incorporated with DHS system to provide the lesser trochanter fragment stable fixation on osteoporotic TypeA2.1 fracture for enhancing stability after bone reduction. Results Sawbone testing results demonstrated higher maximum load, stiffness, and energy in a DHS with wire fixation compared with DHS fixation only. In static biomechanical testing of a cadaver femur, we compared the stiffness of five fixation models and then tested a fatigue failure model in cycle loading with DHS fixation only. Wiring fixation can enhance stability and the cut-out failure model in the fatigue test was identical to the clinical failure model. Conclusions Lesser trochanteric fragment fixation is a crucial concern in the stability of an A2.1 unstable fracture, and the combination of a wiring technique with a DHS seems beneficial for achieving better stability. The addition of an antirotational greater trochanter is likely to enhance stability through wiring of the greater trochanter.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of nasal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) vs. nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) on postextubation respiratory failure (PRF) in infants after congenital heart surgery (CHS).Method: Eighty infants underwent postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 12 h and planned extubation. The infants were randomized to undergo either NHFOV or NCPAP after extubation. Primary outcomes were the incidence of PRF and reintubation, the average PaCO2 level, the average oxygenation index (OI), and pulmonary recruitment in the early extubation phase. Secondary outcomes included the NCPAP/NHFOV time, length of hospital stay, treatment intolerance, signs of discomfort, pneumothorax, adverse hemodynamic effects, nasal trauma, and mortality.Results: Except for PaCO2 within 12 after extubation (39.3 ± 5.8 vs. 43.6 ± 7.3 mmHg, p = 0.05), there was no statistically significant difference for any of the primary outcome measure (PRF, reintubation within 12 h after extubation, oxygenation index within 12 h after extubation, or lung volumes on X-ray after extubation) or secondary outcome measures (duration of non-invasive ventilation, duration of hospital stay, ventilation intolerance, signs of discomfort, pneumothorax, nasal trauma, adverse hemodynamic effects, or death prior to discharge), p > 0.1 for each comparison.Conclusion: NHFOV therapy after extubation in infants after CHS was more efficient in improving CO2 cleaning than NCPAP therapy, but there was no difference in other outcomes (PRF, reintubation, oxygenation index, and pulmonary recruitment).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the application of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) in the respiratory weaning of infants after congenital heart surgery. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 63 infants who were extubated from mechanical ventilation after congenital heart surgery between January 2020 and September 2020. The data, including demographics, anatomic diagnosis, radiology and laboratory test results, and perioperative variables were recorded. Results: The extubation failure rate within 48 h after extubation was significantly lower in the SNIPPV group than in the nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) group. The PaO2 level and PaO2/FiO2 ratio within 48 h after extubation were higher in the SNIPPV group than in the NCPAP group (P < .05). Meanwhile, the PaCO2 level within 48 h was significantly lower in the SNIPPV group (P < .05). Compared with the NCPAP group, the median duration of postoperative noninvasive support and the duration from extubation to hospital discharge were shorter in the SNIPPV group; the total hospital cost was lower in the SNIPPV group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups concerning VAP, pneumothorax, feeding intolerance, sepsis, mortality, and other complications (P > .05). Conclusion: SNIPPV was shown to be superior to NCPAP in avoiding reintubation after congenital heart surgery in infants and significantly improved oxygenation and reduced PaCO2 retention after extubation. Further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of SNIPPV as a routine weaning strategy.

No abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of pulmonary surfactant (PS) combined with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in infants with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after congenital cardiac surgery.Methods: A total of 61 infants with ARDS were eligible and were randomised to the CMV + PS group (n = 30) or the HFOV + PS group (n = 31) between January 2020 and December 2020. The primary outcomes were the changes in arterial blood gas parameters. The duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalisation and the incidence of complications were considered secondary outcomes.Results: A total of 61 infants completed the study. In the HFOV + PS group, the blood gas analysis results were significantly improved (P &lt; 0.05), while the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of hospitalisation were shorter than the CMV + PS group (P &lt; 0.05). However, the incidence of complications was not different between the two groups (P &gt; 0.05).Conclusions: Compared with the CMV + PS group, the HFOV + PS group showed significantly improved ABG variables and had a shortened length of hospitalisation and mechanical ventilation in infants with ARDS after cardiac surgery.Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Number: ChiCTR2000039457.