ObjectiveTo discuss the indications of the nonoperative management for perforated peptic ulcer. MethodsClinical data of 145 patients with perforated peptic ulcer, aged below 70 years old, with first attack and onset timelt;12 h , admitted to our hospital between January 2002 and December 2009, were analyzed respectively. Patients who were negative for fluid of abdominopelvic cavity in ultrasound examination and leakage in watersoluble contrast examination received nonoperative management, otherwise underwent operation directly (If the patients were being on medication for the ulcer, they should also go directly to surgery). Non-operative patients were converted to operation if the symptom had not relieved during the first 12 h. When admitted , the APACHE Ⅱ score was calculated for all patients. ResultsSeventy-four and 71 patients underwent non-operative management and operation directly respectively. Sex, age, onset time, perforation site and so on were comparable between the two groups （Pgt;0.05）, while APACHE Ⅱ score over 8 was 25.7% and 76.1% respectively with significant difference (P=0000). In nonoperative group, 11 (149%) patients were converted to operation. The mortality (4.1% vs 9.8%, P=0.203), mobility (16.2% vs 25.3%, P=0.175), hospital stay 〔(11.4±2.5) d vs (11.3±1.3) d, P=0.447〕, and cost 〔(11 657.3±2 826.4) yuan vs (10 013.0±1 877.4) yuan, P=0.212〕 between two groups had also no significant difference. The mean APACHE Ⅱ score was significant different between the survivors and the dead (9.3 vs 20.2, P=0.000). APACHE Ⅱ score was positively related to mortality and morbility （r=0.98, P=0.000； r=0.52, P=0.000）. ConclusionsNon-operative management is a safe and effective way in selected patients with perforated peptic ulcer, such as APACHE Ⅱ score ≤8, negative for fluid of abdominopelvic cavity in ultrasound examination, and leakage in water-soluble contrast examination. APACHE Ⅱ score is an important factor in prognosis of these patients.
Objective
To review the progress in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture.
Methods
Recent literature about the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture was reviewed and analyzed.
Results
Treatments of acute Achilles tendon rupture include operative and non-operative treatments. Operative treatments include open surgery and percutaneous minimally invasive surgery. Compared with non-operative treatment, operative treatment can effectively reduce the re-rupture incidence, but it had higher complication incidences of wound infection and nerve injury. Although early functional rehabilitation during non-operative treatment could reduce the re-rupture incidence, there is no consistent orthopaedic device and guideline for functional rehabilitation.
Conclusion
Both operative and non-operative treatments have advantages and disadvantages for the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture. No consistent conclusion is arrived regarding functional recovery. Future studies should explore the strategy of early functional rehabilitation during non-operative treatment and its mechanism of promoting tendon healing.
Objective?To compare the effectiveness between operative and non-operative treatment for 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients.?Methods?Between January 2009 and January 2011, 35 patients with 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures were treated with open reduction and locking plate internal fixation (n=20, operative group) and with closed reduction and splint or cast fixation (n=15, non-operative group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, etiology, fracture type, and disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The postoperative rehabilitation protocol was performed in 2 groups.?Results?All patients of the operative group achieved healing of incision by first intention. All patients were followed up 16 months on average (range, 12-20 months). The X-ray films showed that the other fractures healed except 1 case (5.0%) nonunion in operative group. Varus malunion was found in 1 case (6.7%) of non-operative group and 2 cases (10.0%) of operative group. Humeral head necrosis was found in 1 case respectively in 2 groups (5.0% and 6.7%). There was no significant difference in complication incidence between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The Constant-Murley scores of non-operative group and operative group were 64.7 ± 9.9 and 66.8 ± 11.8 at last follow-up respectively, showing no significant difference (t=0.59, P=0.47).?Conclusion?Operative treatment has similar effectiveness to non-operative treatment for 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. In elderly patients, non-operative treatment should be chosen.
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most important causes of back and leg pain, which seriously affects the quality of life of patients. As the first-line treatment for LDH, non-operative treatment can relieve 80% to 90% of symptoms among the patients with LDH. This guideline followed Guidelines for the Formulation/Revision of Clinical Treatment Guidelines in China (2022 edition) and WHO handbook for guideline development (2014 edition) to set up guideline working group. This guideline identified fourteen clinical questions through the literature review and clinical experts’ consensus. We drafted the recommendations after systematically searching and evaluating the evidence; delphi method was adopted for expert consensus on the preliminary recommendations, finally, 19 recommendations were made to guide non-operative treatments for LDH. This guideline can provide guidance for the clinical practice of Chinese and western orthopedics practitioners.
