Journals / Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of Different Dynamization Techniques Applied in Cases of Tibial Fractures with Fracture Healing Problem after İntramedullary Nail Operation

İntramedüller Çivi Uygulaması Sonrası Kırık Kaynama Problemi Olan Tibia Kırığı Vakalarında Uygulanan Farklı Dinamizasyon Tekniklerinin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
329–335
Publication Date
2020-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For all groups, fracture union time was longer in smoking patients than other patients (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Our aim is to compare dynamic locking and secondary dynamization technics which were applied for fracture healing problems after intramedullary nail (IMN) operation for tibia fracture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Ninety-five patients who were operated with IMN for tibia fracture between May 2002 - September 2019 were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For all groups, fracture union time was longer in smoking patients than other patients (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Tibia kırıkları · Kırık sabitlenmesi · intramedüller

Abstract

Our aim is to compare dynamic locking and secondary dynamization technics which were applied for fracture healing problems after intramedullary nail (IMN) operation for tibia fracture. Ninety-five patients who were operated with IMN for tibia fracture between May 2002 - September 2019 were included. Patients divided into three groups. Group 1 was dynamic locked, group 2 was static screws removed patients for dynamization and group 3 was all screws removed patients for dynamizations. Groups were compared according to demographics, smoking, fracture type and fracture union time. Sixty-one patients were male and 34 were female. Mean age of the patients was 35 (19-63). Mean follow-up was 21,3 (12 – 30) weeks. According to comparative analysis between group 1 and 2 and group 2 and 3 showed that fracture union time was longer in group 2 than others. There was no any statically significant relation between age, sex, fracture type and fracture union time (p>0.05). For all groups, fracture union time was longer in smoking patients than other patients (p

Özet

Çalışmamızda intramedüller çivi (İMÇ) uygulanan tibia kırığı vakalarında dinamik kilitleme ve kaynama gecikmesi nedeniyle ikincil dinamizasyon uygulanan vakaları kaynama süreleri yönünden karşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Mayıs 2002 ile Eylül 2019 tarihleri arasında tibia kırığı nedeniyle İMÇ kullanılarak kapalı redüksiyon internal fiksasyon uygulanan 95 hasta çalışmaya alındı. Hastalar dinamizasyon tekniklerine göre 3 gruba ayrıldı. Birinci grup dinamik kilitleme yapılan hastalar, ikinci grup dinamizasyon amacıyla sadece statik vida çıkarılan hastalar, 3. grup dinamizasyon amacıyla dinamik ve statik tüm vidalar çıkarılan hastalardı. Gruplar; demografik bilgiler, sigara kullanımı, kırık tipi ve kaynama süresi açısından karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirildi. Çalışmaya dahil edilen 95 hastanın 61’i erkek, 34’ü kadındı. Hastaların yaş ortalaması 35 (19 – 63) idi. Hastaların ortalama takip süresi 21,3 (12 – 30) hafta idi. Grup 2’de kaynama süresinin diğer gruplara göre daha uzun olduğu görüldü. Tüm hastalar ve ayrı ayrı gruplar arasında yaş ve cinsiyet ile kırık kaynama süresi arasında anlamlı istatistiksel bir ilişki saptanmamıştır (p>0.05). Tüm gruplar için sigara kullanan hastalarda kırık kaynama süresinin daha uzun olduğu saptanmıştır (p0.05). Gruplar, 12. haftadan tam kaynama gerçekleşene kadar geçen süreler açısından incelendiğinde grup 2’de istatistiksel olarak grup 3’ten daha uzun bir kaynama süresi olduğu saptandı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

UNAL, Ö. K., DAĞTAŞ, M. Z. (2020). Comparison of Different Dynamization Techniques Applied in Cases of Tibial Fractures with Fracture Healing Problem after İntramedullary Nail Operation. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 3, 329–335. https://ajindex.com/articles/134766

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Winquist RA, Hansen ST, Clawson DK. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. A report of five hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(12):1912
  2. Wolinsky PR, McCarty E, Shyr Y, Johnson K. Reamed intramedullary nailing of the femur: 551 cases. J Trauma. 1999;46(3):392–9
  3. Gelalis ID, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Korompilias AV, Pakos EE, Vekris MD, et al. Diagnostic and treatment modalities in nonunions of the femoral shaft. A review. Injury. 2012.43(7):980–8
  4. Lai D, Chen CM, Chiu FY, Chang MC, Chen TH. Reconstruction of juxta-articular huge defects of distal femur with vascularized fibular bone graft and Ilizarov’s distraction osteogenesis. J Trauma. 2007;62(1):166–73
  5. Aksekili Mae, Işık Ç, Çay N, Gürsoy S, Şimşek Me, Bozkurt M. Uzun Kemiklerin Diafiziel Kırıklarının Gecikmiş Kaynamasında Platelet-Rich Plasma Uygulanmasının Etkileri. Bozok Tıp Dergisi. 2016;6(1):1–6
  6. Wu CC, Shih CH. Effect of dynamization of a static interlocking nail on fracture healing. Canadian journal of surgery Journal canadien de chirurgie Can J Surg. 1993;36(4):302-6
  7. Kempf I, Grosse A, Beck G. Closed locked intramedullary nailing. Its application to comminuted fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Jun;67(5):709-20
  8. Sankara rao P, Kiran kumar P, Choppara S, Deshpande S, Shankara rao Mch Orthopaedics Professor DM. Dynamızatıon For Delayed & Non-Unıon Fractures Of Femur Shaft. Int. j. orthop. traumatol. surg. sci. 2017;3(2)614-616 9. Badami RN, Purohit S, Resident S. Dynamically locked intramedullary interlocking nail for fracture shaft of tibia: An effective surgical protocol with minimal complications. Indian J Orthop. 2018;4(1):41-43 10. Klemm K, Schellmann WD. Dynamic and static locking of the intramedullary nail. Monatsschr Unfallheilkd Versicher Versorg Verkehrsmed. 1972 Dec;75(12):568-75
  9. Brumback RJ. The rationales of interlocking nailing of the femur, tibia, and humerus: An overview. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Mar;(324):292-320
  10. Dagrenat D, Moncade N, Cordey J, Rahn BA, Kempf I, Perren SM. Effects of the dynamization of static bolt nailing. In vivo experimentation. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1988;74 Suppl 2:100-4
  11. Kooistra BW, Dijkman BG, Busse JW, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M. The radiographic union scale in tibial fractures: Reliability and validity. J Orthop Trauma. 2010 Mar;24 Suppl 1:S81-6
  12. Müller ME, Koch P, Nazarian S, Schatzker J. The Classification of Diaphyseal Fractur