Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Instr Course Lect ; 73: 861-878, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38090945

RESUMEN

The management of periprosthetic fractures with unstable prosthetic implants is a challenging and commonly encountered problem. It is important to address the many current issues and controversies regarding the treatment of periprosthetic fractures with revision total joint arthroplasty. Key strategies to optimize surgical decision making around the use of arthroplasty and management of complications following these complex injuries will be addressed.


Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla , Fracturas del Fémur , Fracturas Periprotésicas , Humanos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/efectos adversos , Fracturas del Fémur/complicaciones , Fracturas del Fémur/cirugía , Fracturas Periprotésicas/etiología , Fracturas Periprotésicas/cirugía , Prótesis e Implantes/efectos adversos , Reoperación/efectos adversos
2.
J Orthop Surg Res ; 18(1): 142, 2023 Feb 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36843092

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures (AO/OTA 12) is being performed more frequently. Accordingly, it is important to understand the complications associated with plate fixation. This study analyzes risk factors associated with mechanical failure following plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures in order to further elucidate the mode and location of failure. METHODS: A retrospective review of 351 humeral shaft fractures was completed at a single level I trauma center. Eleven of eighty-five humeral shaft fractures had aseptic mechanical failure requiring revision (12.9%), following initial plate fixation. Fracture characteristics (AO type, comminution, location) and fracture fixation (plate type, multiplanar, number of screws proximal and distal to the fracture) were compared between aseptic mechanical failure and those without failure. A forward stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to determine any significant predictors of aseptic mechanical failure. RESULTS: There was significant differences in fixation between the aseptic mechanical failure group and those without failure, specifically in the number of screws for proximal fixation (p = 0.008) and distal fixation (p = 0.040). In the aseptic mechanical failure group, patients tended to have less than < 8 cortices of proximal fixation (82%) and less than < 8 cortices of distal fixation (64%). Conversely, in patients without mechanical failure there was a tendency to have greater than > 8 cortices in both the proximal (62%) and distal fixation (70%). A forward stepwise logistic regression analysis found that less than < 8 cortices of proximal fixation was a significant predictor of aseptic failure, OR 7.96 (p = 0.011). We think this can be accounted for due to the variable bone quality, thinner cortices and multiple torsional forces in the proximal shaft that may warrant special consideration for fixation. CONCLUSION: The current dogma of humeral shaft fracture stabilization is to use a minimum of 3 screws proximal and distal to the fracture, however the current study demonstrates this is associated with higher rates of mechanical failure. In contrast, 4 bicortical screws or more of fixation on either side of the fracture had lower failure rates and may help to reduce the risk of mechanical failure. Level of Evidence Level III.


Asunto(s)
Fracturas del Húmero , Fracturas del Hombro , Humanos , Fracturas del Húmero/cirugía , Húmero/cirugía , Fijación de Fractura , Factores de Riesgo , Placas Óseas/efectos adversos , Tornillos Óseos/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Fijación Interna de Fracturas/efectos adversos , Fracturas del Hombro/cirugía
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...