RESUMEN
With the rapid development of digital research in clinical orthopedics, the efficacy and safety of splint fixation can be better evaluated through biomechanical analysis based on a three-dimensional (3D) finite element model. It is essential to address the current gap in understanding the biomechanical implications of anatomical splint fixation for Colles fractures. By employing advanced 3D finite element analysis, the present study aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation, offering valuable insights that can contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of anatomical splint fixation in the clinical management of Colles fractures. The 3D finite element models of the forearm and hand were constructed using Mimics 15.0 according to data from computed tomography of a patient with a Colles fracture. After the validity of the model was verified, the corresponding material properties of the models were adjusted to simulate a Colles fracture. Subsequently, the reduction functions, such as radial inclination and ulnar deviation, of the simulated fracture were completed and the mechanical changes of the tissues surrounding the fracture were calculated. Anatomical splints were then placed on the surfaces of the 3D finite element models of Colles fractures at various positions to analyze the changes in the stress cloud diagram, such as for the soft tissue and anatomical splints. In the present study, the constructed 3D finite element models were accurate and valid. The maximum stress of the anatomical splints and soft tissues was 2.346 and 0.106 MPa in pronation, 1.780 and 0.069 MPa in median rotation and 3.045 and 0.057 MPa in supination, respectively. Splint stress reached the highest level in supination and soft tissue stress achieved the highest level in pronation. The peak of splint stress occurred during supination, which contrasts to the peak of soft tissue stress observed in pronation, suggesting splint fixation median rotation can effectively avoid compression of the local soft tissue.
RESUMEN
[This retracts the article on p. 2110 in vol. 25, PMID: 31114137.].
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Reflux esophagitis (RE) is a common digestive disorder, and its frequent recurrences cause significant physical pain and are financially burdensome to patients. However, studies on the natural history of treated RE are few. Although proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as the first-line treatment provide notable symptomatic relief, disordered gut microbiota has been observed among PPI users. Probiotics are commonly administered to patients to regulate the disordered intestinal flora. AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic effects in RE patients treated with a combination of esomeprazole and probiotics [Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) and Enterococcus faecium (E. faecium)]. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-four RE patients were randomized into two groups of 67 subjects each. The probiotics group was administered with esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. and live combined B. subtilis and E. faecium enteric-coated capsules 500 mg t.i.d. for eight weeks; the placebo group was administered with esomeprazole 20 mg b.i.d. and placebo for eight weeks. Subsequently, 12-wk follow-up was carried out on patients who achieved both endoscopic and clinical cure. Endoscopy, reflux diagnostic questionnaire (RDQ), gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS), and lactulose hydrogen breath test were performed to evaluate the therapeutic effects. A difference of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients in the probiotics group and 64 patients in the placebo group completed the 8-wk treatment. The healing rate and RDQ score had no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the GSRS diarrhea syndrome score was decreased significantly in the probiotics group (P = 0.002), and the small intestinal bacterial overgrowth negative rate in the probiotics group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (P = 0.002). Of 114 endoscopically and clinically cured patients, 96 completed the follow-up. The log-rank test showed that the time to relapse was shorter in the placebo group than in the probiotics group (P = 0.041). Furthermore, the therapy had a significant influence on relapse time, and the risk of relapse in the probiotics group was lower than that in the placebo group at any time point during the 12-wk follow-up (hazard ratio = 0.52, P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Esomeprazole combined with probiotics (B. subtilis and E. faecium) have a beneficial effect on RE treatment and patient management.
