SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2001 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 4

Comparison between reamed and unreamed interlocking intramedullary nailing in femoral shaft fractures

Femur cisim kırıklarında oymalı ve oymasız kilitli intramedüller çivilemenin karşılaştırılması

Şükrü SOLAK
ERBİL AYDIN
Pages
347–350
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)

No significant differences seem to exist between reamed and unreamed nailing with respect to bone healing time and development of complications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: We compared our results in the treatment of femoral fractures with reamed or unreamed intramedullary femoral nailing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Patients who underwent treatment with reamed (n=33; 13 females, 20 males; mean age 38 years; range 18 to 69 years) or unreamed (n=29; 8 females, 21 males; mean age 32 years; range 19 to 60 years) intramedullary nailing for isolated femoral fractures were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:No significant differences seem to exist between reamed and unreamed nailing with respect to bone healing time and development of complications.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kemik çivileri · Karşılaştırmalı çalışma · Femur kırıkları

Abstract

Objectives: We compared our results in the treatment of femoral fractures with reamed or unreamed intramedullary femoral nailing. Methods: Patients who underwent treatment with reamed (n=33; 13 females, 20 males; mean age 38 years; range 18 to 69 years) or unreamed (n=29; 8 females, 21 males; mean age 32 years; range 19 to 60 years) intramedullary nailing for isolated femoral fractures were included. The results were compared with respect to union and complications. All the patients had closed fractures. Follow-up examinations were made in 6th, 10th, and 16th weeks postoperatively. Results: The mean durations for union were 23.4 weeks and 25.5 weeks in patients treated with reamed and unreamed nailing, respectively. The only significant difference between the two treatment groups with respect to complications was the occurrence of ectopic ossification (7 patients, 21.2% vs 8 patients, 27.6%; p<0.05). Conclusion: Intramedullary nailing is the method of choice for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. No significant differences seem to exist between reamed and unreamed nailing with respect to bone healing time and development of complications.

Özet

Amaç: Femur cisim kırıklarında uyguladığımız oymalı veya oymasız intramedüller çiviler ile tedaviler sonuçları açısından karşılaştırıldı. Çalışma planı: izole femur kırığı nedeniyle oymalı intramedüller çivileme (n=33; 13 kadın, 20 erkek; ort. yaş 38; dağılım 18-69) ve oymasız intramedüller çivileme (n=29; 8 kadın, 21 erkek; ort. yaş 32; dağılım 19-60) ile tedavi edilen olgular kaynama süreleri ve komplikasyonlar açısından değerlendirildi. Olguların tümünde kapalı kırık vardı. Kontroller ameliyat sonrası 6, 10 ve 16. haftalarda yapıldı. Sonuçlar: Oymalı çivileme grubunda ortalama kaynama süresi 23.4 hafta, oymasız çivileme grubunda 25.5 hafta bulundu. Komplikasyonlar açısından heterotopik kemikleşme oranlarındaki fark dışında (7 hasta, %21.2 ve 8 hasta, %27.6; p<0.05), iki uygulama arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı. Çıkarımlar: intramedüller çivileme, femur cisim kırıklarının tedavisinde günümüzün seçkin yöntemidir. Oymalı veya oymasız çivileme seçiminin kırık iyileşme süresi ve komplikasyonları üzerinde belirgin bir farkı olmadığı sonucuna varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

SOLAK, Ş., AYDIN, E. (2001). Comparison between reamed and unreamed interlocking intramedullary nailing in femoral shaft fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 4, 347–350. https://ajindex.com/articles/354560

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Levine AM. Orthopaedic knowledge update: trauma. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
  2. Pape HC, Auf'm'Kolk M, Paffrath T, Regel G, Sturm JA, Tscherne H. Primary intramedullary femur fixation in multiple trauma patients with associated lung contusion-a cause of posttraumatic ARDS? J Trauma 1993
  3. Pape HC, Regel G, Dwenger A, Krumm K, Schweitzer G, Krettek C, et al. Influences of different methods of intramedullary femoral nailing on lung function in patients with multiple trauma. J Trauma 1993
  4. Heim U, Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J (editors). The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
  5. Johnson KD. Femoral shaft fractures. In: Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM, Trafton PG, editors. Skeletal trauma: fractures, dislocations, and ligamentous injuries. 1st ed. Vol. 2, Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.
  6. p. 1525-641. 6. Giannoudis PV, Furlong AJ, Macdonald DA, Smith RM. Reamed against unreamed nailing of the femoral diaphysis: a retrospective study of healing time. Injury 1997
  7. Winquist RA, Hansen ST Jr, Clawson DK. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. A report of five hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1984
  8. Hooper GJ, Lyon DW. Closed unlocked nailing for comminuted femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1988
  9. Bucholz RW, Jones A. Fractures of the shaft of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1991
  10. Schemitsch EH, Kowalski MJ, Swiontkowski MF, Harrington RM. Comparison of the effect of reamed and unreamed locked intramedullary nailing on blood flow in the callus and strength of union following fracture of the sheep tibia. J Orthop Res 1995
  11. Finkemeier CG, Schmidt AH, Kyle RF, Templeman DC, Varecka TF. A prospective, randomized study of intramedullary nails inserted with and without reaming for the treatment of open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. J Orthop Trauma 2000
  12. Brumback RJ, Wells JD, Lakatos R, Poka A, Bathon GH, Burgess AR. Heterotopic ossification about the hip after intramedullary nailing for fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1990
  13. Vicar AJ, Coleman CR. A comparison of the anterolateral, transtrochanteric, and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1984
  14. :152-9. 14. Paley D, Young MC, Wiley AM, Fornasier VL, Jackson RW Percutaneous bone marrow grafting of frac