ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) via percutaneous plate placement on the distal medial tibia can be performed with minimizes soft tissue injury and produces good clinical results. However, the difficulty with MIPO lies in how to achieve satisfactory fracture reduction and maintain that reduction via indirect reduction techniques to facilitate internal fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques combined with MIPO in the treatment of distal tibia fractures. METHODS: Between January 2013 and December 2019, 58 patients with a distal tibia fracture were treated using MIPO. Patients were divided into two groups according to the indirect reduction method that was used: 26 patients were reduced with manual traction(group M), and 32 were reduced with an AO distractor (group A).Time until union and clinical outcomes including AOFAS ankle-rating score and ankle range of ankle motion at final follow-up were compared. Mean operative time, incision length, blood loss and postoperative complications were recorded via chart review. Radiographic results at final follow-up were assessed for tibial angulation and shortening by a blinded reader. RESULTS: Mean operative time, incision length, and blood loss in group A were significantly lower than in group M(p = 0.019, 0.018 and 0.016, respectively).Radiographic evidence of bony union was seen in all cases, and mean time until union was equivalent between the two groups (p = 0.384).Skin irritation was noted in one case(3.1%) in group A and three cases(11.5%)in group M, but the symptoms were not severe and the plate was removed after bony union. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups(p = 0.461). Mean AOFAS score and range of ankle motion were equivalent between the two groups, as were varus deformity, valgus deformity, anterior angulation and posterior angulation. No patients had gross angular deformity. Mean tibial shortening was not significantly different between the two groups, and no patients had tibial shortening > 10 mm. CONCLUSION: Both an AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques prior to MIPO in the treatment of distal tibial fractures permit a high fracture healing rate and satisfying functional outcomes with few wound healing complications. An AO distractor is an excellent indirect reduction method that may improve operative efficiency and reduce the risk of soft tissue injury.
Subject(s)
Soft Tissue Injuries , Tibial Fractures , Humans , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Radiography , Tibial Fractures/diagnostic imaging , Tibial Fractures/surgery , Bone Plates , Fracture Fixation, Internal/adverse effects , Fracture Fixation, Internal/methods , Fracture Healing , Soft Tissue Injuries/etiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: As a result of the pandemic of COVID-19, the public have been experiencing psychological distress. However, the prevalence of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the prevalence of psychological distress during COVID-19 outbreak and their risk factors, especially their internal paths and causality. METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional survey of the prevalence of mental disorders was conducted. We used Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to estimate the prevalence of anxiety and depression. The internal paths and the causality of the psychological health were analyzed using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. RESULTS: A total of 24,789 respondents completed the survey. We found that the overall prevalence of anxiety, depression, combination of anxiety, and depression were 51.6% (95% CI: 51.0-52.2), 47.5% (95% CI: 46.9-48.1), and 24.5% (95% CI: 24.0-25.0), respectively. The risk of psychological disorders in men was higher than that in women. The status of psychological health was different across different age groups, education levels, occupations, and income levels. The SEM analysis revealed that inadequate material supplies, low income, low education, lack of knowledge or confidence of the epidemic, and lack of exercise are major risk factors for psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this survey poses serious challenges related to the high prevalence of psychological distress, but also offers strategies to deal with the mental health problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.