Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Revizní operace diafyzárních zlomenin předloktí
[Revision surgery in diaphyseal forearm fractures]

Petr Višňa, E. Beitl, Z. Šmídl, J. Kalvach, E. Jaganjac

Jazyk čeština Země Česko

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc07509954

Grantová podpora
NR8927 MZ0 CEP - Centrální evidence projektů

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The aim of the study was to compare the results of revision surgery in diaphyseal fractures of the ulna and radius treated by intra-medullary interlocking nailing or plate osteosynthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS The group included 36 patients who, in the period from 2000 to 2005, were treated with the use of the intra-medullary ForeSight nail system (Smith & Nephew, USA) or a small, 3.5 mm auto-compression plate (different manufacturers). Pseudoarthrosis developed in 25 patients and recurrent fractures were found in 11 patients (six of these suffered fractures along the original fracture line after minimal trauma and five showed a recurrent fracture at the site of screw tunnels). The average age of the patients was 37.3 years. The average period between injury and revision surgery was 16 months (range, 4 to 32 months). The follow-up included examination for early and late complications and the evaluation of X-ray findings and functional outcomes. RESULTS The average follow-up was 21 months (range, 12 to 36 months). For revision surgery, an intra-medullary nail was used in 28 and a plate in 8 patients. The average operative time was 85 min (range, 30 to 180 min). Radiographic union was achieved by 6 months in 30, by 12 months in three and by 18 months in three patients. The average fusion time in the 30 patients healing by 6 months (nailing, 23x, 7x plate osteosynthesis) was 16.05 weeks. The range of motion in the wrist, forearm and elbow was evaluated by the Anderson method. The outcomes were excellent, good and satisfactory in 11, 15 and 10 patients, respectively. Poor results or wrist or elbow stiffness were not recorded. Pain was recorded at rest and in activity, taking requirements for analgesic therapy into account. After revision surgery, 22 patients were free from pain, 10 reported occasional pain during activity and four experienced pain at rest. None of the patients required permanent analgesic therapy. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study show the effectiveness of plate and nailing techniques in revision forearm surgery. The corrective procedure must be chosen with regard to the type of pseudoarthrosis, and individual therapy respecting the principles of stable osteosynthesis is necessary. A differentiated operative approach, infection control and stimulation of bony union also play important roles.

Revision surgery in diaphyseal forearm fractures

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

Bibliografie atd.

Lit.: 18

000      
04465naa 2200457 a 4500
001      
bmc07509954
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20140227092643.0
008      
081006s2007 xr e cze||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.55095/achot2007/053 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)18001632
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a cze $b eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Višňa, Petr, $d 1966- $7 mzk2004261341
245    10
$a Revizní operace diafyzárních zlomenin předloktí / $c Petr Višňa, E. Beitl, Z. Šmídl, J. Kalvach, E. Jaganjac
246    11
$a Revision surgery in diaphyseal forearm fractures
314    __
$a Traumatologické oddělení, Ortopedická klinika 1. LF UK a FN Motol, Praha 5
504    __
$a Lit.: 18
520    9_
$a PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The aim of the study was to compare the results of revision surgery in diaphyseal fractures of the ulna and radius treated by intra-medullary interlocking nailing or plate osteosynthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS The group included 36 patients who, in the period from 2000 to 2005, were treated with the use of the intra-medullary ForeSight nail system (Smith & Nephew, USA) or a small, 3.5 mm auto-compression plate (different manufacturers). Pseudoarthrosis developed in 25 patients and recurrent fractures were found in 11 patients (six of these suffered fractures along the original fracture line after minimal trauma and five showed a recurrent fracture at the site of screw tunnels). The average age of the patients was 37.3 years. The average period between injury and revision surgery was 16 months (range, 4 to 32 months). The follow-up included examination for early and late complications and the evaluation of X-ray findings and functional outcomes. RESULTS The average follow-up was 21 months (range, 12 to 36 months). For revision surgery, an intra-medullary nail was used in 28 and a plate in 8 patients. The average operative time was 85 min (range, 30 to 180 min). Radiographic union was achieved by 6 months in 30, by 12 months in three and by 18 months in three patients. The average fusion time in the 30 patients healing by 6 months (nailing, 23x, 7x plate osteosynthesis) was 16.05 weeks. The range of motion in the wrist, forearm and elbow was evaluated by the Anderson method. The outcomes were excellent, good and satisfactory in 11, 15 and 10 patients, respectively. Poor results or wrist or elbow stiffness were not recorded. Pain was recorded at rest and in activity, taking requirements for analgesic therapy into account. After revision surgery, 22 patients were free from pain, 10 reported occasional pain during activity and four experienced pain at rest. None of the patients required permanent analgesic therapy. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study show the effectiveness of plate and nailing techniques in revision forearm surgery. The corrective procedure must be chosen with regard to the type of pseudoarthrosis, and individual therapy respecting the principles of stable osteosynthesis is necessary. A differentiated operative approach, infection control and stimulation of bony union also play important roles.
650    _2
$a reoperace $x metody $x využití $7 D012086
650    _2
$a fraktury ulny $x chirurgie $x komplikace $7 D014458
650    _2
$a fraktury vřetenní kosti $x chirurgie $x komplikace $7 D011885
650    _2
$a kostní hřeby $x využití $7 D001858
650    _2
$a ortopedické fixační pomůcky $x využití $7 D009984
650    _2
$a intramedulární fixace fraktury $x metody $x využití $7 D005594
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x chirurgie $7 D011183
650    _2
$a interpretace statistických dat $7 D003627
650    _2
$a výsledky a postupy - zhodnocení (zdravotní péče) $x metody $x využití $7 D010043
700    1_
$a Beitl, Evžen $7 xx0114400
700    1_
$a Šmídl, Zdeněk $7 xx0114403
700    1_
$a Kalvach, Jaroslav, $d 1955- $7 xx0080492
700    1_
$a Jaganjac, Edib, $7 xx0114402 $d 1957-
773    0_
$w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae čechoslovaca $g Roč. 74, č. 5 (2007), s. 342-348 $x 0001-5415
856    41
$u http://www.achot.cz/dwnld/0705_342.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y 1 $z 0
990    __
$a 20081005142126 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20140227093456 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 625544 $s 477979
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2007 $b 74 $c 5 $d 342-348 $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
GRA    __
$a NR8927 $p MZ0
LZP    __
$a 2008-34/vtal

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...