Journals / Ulusal Travma Dergisi / 2004 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

Diz çıkıklarında cerrahi ve konservatif tedavinin değerlendirilmesi

Knee dislocations: An evaluation of surgical and conservative treatment

Pages
239–244
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Then, treatment depending on the presence and severity of ligamentous injuries is essential to provide a stable and functional extremity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: We evaluated the results of surgical or non-operative treatment of knee dislocations and the effect of associated soft tissue injuries on the planning of treatment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: The study included 12 patients (10 males, 2 females; mean age 34 years; range 17 to 75 years).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Then, treatment depending on the presence and severity of ligamentous injuries is essential to provide a stable and functional extremity.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ön çapraz bağ · Ameliyat sonrası komplikasyonlar · Hareket açıklığı

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the results of surgical or non-operative treatment of knee dislocations and the effect of associated soft tissue injuries on the planning of treatment. METHODS: The study included 12 patients (10 males, 2 females; mean age 34 years; range 17 to 75 years). Knee dislocations were caused by low-energy injuries in five patients, and by highenergy injuries in seven patients. All the knees were dislocated posteriorly. Three dislocations were open. Three patients had popliteal artery injuries and three patients had peroneal nerve injuries. Dislocations affecting the anterior and/or posterior cruciate ligaments were treated surgically (n=6), whereas the medial collateral ligament and lateral ligament injuries were treated non-operatively (n=6). The Lysholm scores and the range of motion of the knees were compared between surgically and conservatively treated groups. The mean followup period was 46 months (range 26 to 82 months). RESULTS: The mean range of motion of the knees (116° versus 72°; p<0.01) and the mean Lysholm scores (84.6 versus 74; p<0.01) differed significantly between patients undergoing surgical and non-operative treatment. Chronic laxity occurred in two knees (one with surgical, one with conservative treatment). Arthrofibrosis developed in four patients (one with surgical, three with conservative treatment). There were no deep infections. Superficial infections occurred in two open dislocations. CONCLUSIONS: Knee dislocations should be regarded as significant limb-threatening injuries. Evaluation and immediate treatment of vascular insufficiency is of primary importance. Then, treatment depending on the presence and severity of ligamentous injuries is essential to provide a stable and functional extremity.

Özet

AMAÇ Diz çıkıklarında uygulanan cerrahi ve konservatif tedavi yöntemlerinin sonuçları ve eşlik eden yumuşak doku yaralanmalarının tedavi şeklini belirlemedeki rolleri değerlendirildi. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM Diz çıkığı tanısı konan 12 hasta (10 erkek, 2 kadın; ort. yaş 34; dağılım 17-75) retrospektif olarak incelendi. Çıkıklar beş olguda düşük enerjili yaralanma, yedi olguda yüksek enerjili yaralanma sonucu meydana gelmişti. Tüm çıkıklar posterior yönde idi. Üç olguda açık çıkık saptandı. Çıkıklara üç olguda popliteal arter yaralanması, üç olguda peroneal sinir yaralanması eşlik etmekteydi. Ön ve/veya arka çapraz bağ yaralanması olan altı olgu cerrahi, medial kollateral ligaman veya lateral ligaman yaralanması olan altı olgu konservatif olarak tedavi edildi. Cerrahi ve cerrahisiz tedavi edilen hasta grupları Lysholm diz skoru ve diz eklemi hareket açıklığı açısından karşılaştırıldı. Ortalama izlem süresi 46 ay (dağılım (26-82 ay) idi. BULGULAR Cerrahi uygulanan grupta ortalama Lysholm diz skoru 84.6 iken konservatif tedavi grubunda 74 bulundu (p<0.01). Ortalama diz hareket açıklığı cerrahi grubunda 116 derece, konservatif tedavi grubunda 72 derece saptandı (p<0.01). Biri cerrahi, biri konservatif tedavi gören iki dizde kronik laksisi-te görüldü. Dört dizde aıtrofibrozis gelişti (1 cerrahi, 3 konservatif). Derin enfeksiyon hiçbir olguda görülmedi, tki açık çıkıkta yüzeyel enfeksiyon gelişti. SONUÇ Diz çıkıkları ekstremiteyi tehdit eden yaralanmalar olarak değerlendirilmelidir. Damar yaralanmasının araştırılması ve acil tedavisi birincil önemdedir. Daha sonra, stabil ve fonksiyonel bir ekstremitenin sağlanması için, eşlik eden bağ yaralanmalarının niteliği göz önüne alınarak tedavi planı oluşturulmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRAĞ, B., ÖZTÜRK, Ç., BİLGEN, Ö. F., DURAK, K. (2004). Diz çıkıklarında cerrahi ve konservatif tedavinin değerlendirilmesi. Ulusal Travma Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 239–244. https://ajindex.com/articles/324932

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Scheid DK. Treatment of the multiple ligament injured knee and knee dislocations: a trauma perspective. Instr Course Lect 2003;52:409-11
  2. Schenck RC Jr, Hunter RE, Ostrum RF, Perry CR. Knee dislocations. Instr Course Lect 1999;48:515-22
  3. Good L, Johnson RJ. The dislocated knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1995;3:284-92
  4. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 1982;10:150-4
  5. Yeh WL, Tu YK, Su JY, Hsu RW. Knee dislocation: treatment of high-velocity knee dislocation. J Trauma 1999; 46:693-701
  6. Green NE, Allen BL. Vascular injuries associated with dislocation of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1977;59: 236-9
  7. Jones RE, Smith EC, Bone GE. Vascular and orthopedic complications of knee dislocation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1979;149:554-8
  8. Treiman GS, Yellin AE, Weaver FA, Wang S, Ghalambor N, Barlow W, et al. Examination of the patient with a knee dislocation. The case for selective arteriography. Arch Surg 1992; 127: 1056 - 62
  9. Shelbourne KD, Porter DA, Clingman JA, McCarroll JR, Rettig AC. Low-velocity knee dislocation. Orthop Rev 1991;20:995-1004
  10. Goitz RJ, Tomaino MM. Management of peroneal nerve injuries associated with knee dislocations. Am J Orthop 2003;32:14-6
  11. Cole BJ, Harner CD. The multiple ligament injured knee. Clin Sports Med 1999;18:241-62
  12. Taylor AR, Arden GP, Rainey HA. Traumatic dislocation of the knee. A report of forty-three cases with special reference to conservative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1972;54:96-102. 13.Wascher DC, Dvirnak PC, DeCoster TA. Knee dislocation: initial assessment and implications for treatment. J Orthop Trauma 1997;11:525-9
  13. Dedmond BT, Almekinders LC. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of knee dislocations: a meta-analysis. Am J Knee Surg 2001;14:33-8
  14. Shapiro MS, Freedman EL. Allograft reconstruction of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments after traumatic knee dislocation. Am J Sports Med 1995;23:580-7
  15. Cooper DE, Speer KP, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Complete knee dislocation without posterior cruciate ligament disruption. A report of four cases and review of the literature. Clin Orthop 1992;(284):228-33
  16. Shelbourne KD, Pritchard J, Rettig AC, McCarroll JR, Vanmeter CD. Knee dislocations with intact PCL. Orthop Rev 1992;21:607-8, 610-1.