There has been a statistically significant decrease in lower level of evidence studies published in the orthopaedic traumatology literature over the past 15 years.
Unstable pelvic ring disruption is most commonly treated with closed reduction and percutaneous screw fixation. Traditional methods involve screw placement under fluoroscopic imaging, but with recent technologic advances, intraoperative 3D navigation can now be used to help with the insertion of sacroiliac screws. Various cadaver studies have shown that placement of sacroiliac screws under 3D navigation is more accurate than placement under traditional fluoroscopic guidance. This retrospective review of 134 patients evaluated the clinical use of 3D navigation vs traditional fluoroscopy for sacroiliac screw insertion at an urban level I trauma center. Analysis of surgical data showed a significantly longer imaging time with the conventional method compared with the more experimental 3D navigation (204.06 seconds vs 66.90 seconds, P <.01). Further, a significantly larger radiation dose to both the patient and the staff was seen with traditional fluoroscopy (80.1 mGy for each) compared with that of 3D navigation (39.0 mGy and 25.1 mGy, respectively). No statistically significant difference was seen for outcome or follow-up variables between the 2 extrapolated groups. These variables included length of hospital stay, infection, nerve injury, and hardware breakage. The authors advocate that 3D navigated sacroiliac screws are safe and effective for pelvic ring stabilization; this method may be especially applicable in certain difficult imaging situations, such as morbid obesity, bowel gas interference, and overlapping pelvic structures that make the sacral corridor difficult to discern with traditional 2D fluoroscopy. Safe placement of transiliac-transsacral screws ( P <.01) occurred with 3D navigation, and there was a statistically significant increase in adequate screw placement in multiple sacral segments compared with single-level stabilization ( P <.01). [ Orthopedics . 2021;44(4):229–234.]
Background and Aims: Literature regarding alternative tubing for fluid delivery in irrigation and debridement procedures is lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare three different apparatuses with varying quantities of irrigation fluid to assess efficiency of administration and evaluate overall time for fluid administration. Methods: This model was designed to compare available methods of gravity irrigation used in practice. Fluid flow time was measured for three types of tubing: single-lumen cystoscopy tubing, Y-type double-lumen cystoscopy tubing, and nonconductive suction tubing. Irrigation times were assessed for varying volumes of 3, 6, and 9 L to investigate the relationship between bag changes and irrigation time. Bag changes were not conducted for the 3 L trial, but were for 6 and 9 L trials. Dimensions of cystoscopy tubing consisted of 4.95 mm internal diameter and 2.1 m length in both single-lumen and Y-type double-lumen apparatus. Nonconduction suction tubing dimensions were 6.0 mm internal diameter and standard 3.7 m in length. Results:The mean flow time for suction tubing was significantly faster than the cystoscopy tubing for the 3 and 9 L trials (p < 0.001). At 6 L, flow time for the suction tubing and the double lumen cystoscopy tubing were similar, 264 versus 260 s, respectively. At 9 L, the mean flow time for the suction tubing was 80 s faster (410 vs. 491 s) compared with single-lumen cystoscopy and was nearly 30 s faster compared with Y-type cystoscopy tubing. Conclusion:The results of this study provide insight into a faster, widely available, and cost-efficient alternative to commonly used cystoscopy tubing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.