Dergiler / The European Research Journal / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 5

The functional and radiological comparison of the surgical treatment results of forearm diaphyseal fractures in adults treated with open reduction internal fixation and intramedullary locking nail

Sayfa
500–507
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusions: The results of the two fixation methods in terms of functional recovery and patient satisfaction were similar in the surgical treatment of forearm double fractures in adults.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: The results of two different methods applied in the surgical treatment of forearm fractures in adults were evaluated.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: Thirty-nine patients who applied to our clinic between 2016-2018 and were treated surgically were included in the study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusions: The results of the two fixation methods in terms of functional recovery and patient satisfaction were similar in the surgical treatment of forearm double fractures in adults.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2016-2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Adult · forearm diaphyseal fractures · intramedullary locking nail

Abstract

Objectives: The results of two different methods applied in the surgical treatment of forearm fractures in adults were evaluated. Methods: Thirty-nine patients who applied to our clinic between 2016-2018 and were treated surgically were included in the study. Twenty-three patients out of these were treated with plate osteosynthesis (group 1), and 16 patients were treated with intramedullary locking nail (group 2). While 14 of the patients in group 1 were male, 9 were female, and the average age was 39.8 years (range; 19-74 years); and 11 of the patients in group 2 were male, 5 were female, and the average age was 36.6 years (range; 18-68 years). Patients were called for monthly check-ups until fracture union. Then, radiographic evaluation was done at 3, 6 and 12 months. The average follow-up time was 26 months (range;12-36 months) for group 1 and 25 months (range;12-35 months) for group 2. The loss of the line of fracture through radiographic imaging of trabeculations or callus formation in the cortex on the anteroposterior and lateral radiographs, and clinically loss of sensitivity on fracture were considered fracture union. In the last controls, while the elbow was at 90 degrees of flexion, the amount of rotation of both forearms was measured by using the goniometer. In the functional evaluation, the system described by Grace and Eversmann and used to evaluate fracture union and forearm rotation was used. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by using the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) method. Results: While the union duration in group 1 was 12.3 weeks (range; 8-18 weeks), the union duration in group 2 was 12 weeks (range; 9-16 weeks). There was no statistical difference in terms of union durations (p > 0.05). In Group 1, according to the Grace-Eversmann evaluation, 19 (82.6%) patients had excellent and good results, three (13.1%) patients had acceptable results, and 1 (4.3%) patient had poor results. Forearm pronation of the patient with poor results was less than 60% but his bone union was complete. In group 1, the average DASH score was 15.04 (range; 3-28). In group 2, Grace-Eversmann evaluation showed excellent and good results in 13 (81.3%) patients and acceptable results in 3 (18.7%) patients. Average DASH score was found to be 14.6 (range; 2-34). When Grace-Eversmann criteria and DASH values were compared, no significant difference was found between the two groups (p > 0.05). Vascular nerve injury, tendon injury, radioulnar synostosis, and compartment syndrome were not observed in any patient. Conclusions: The results of the two fixation methods in terms of functional recovery and patient satisfaction were similar in the surgical treatment of forearm double fractures in adults.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÇEVİK, N., AKALIN, Y., ÖZTÜRK, A. (2020). The functional and radiological comparison of the surgical treatment results of forearm diaphyseal fractures in adults treated with open reduction internal fixation and intramedullary locking nail. The European Research Journal, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 5, 500–507. https://ajindex.com/articles/361209

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Markolf KL, Lamey D, Yang S, Meals R, Hotchkiss R. Radioulnar load-sharing in the forearm. A study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:879-88
  2. Abe S, Murase T, Oka K, Shigi A, Tanaka H, Yoshikawa H. In vivo three-dimensional analysis of malunited forearm diaphyseal fractures with forearm rotational restriction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018;100:e113
  3. Özbal R, Tezer M, Koçkesen TC, Özturk İ, Kuzgun Ü. Selection of osteosynthesis material in the surgical treatment of adult forearm diaphyseal fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2000;34:164-9
  4. Lee SK, Kim YH, Kim SM, Choy WS. A comparative study of three different surgical methods for both-forearm-bone fractures in adults. Acta Orthop Belg 2019;85:305-16
  5. Crenshaw AH Jr. Fractures of shoulder, arm and forearm. In: Canale ST, Daugherty K, Jones L, Azar FM, Beaty JH, Calandruccio JH, et al. editors. Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. 10th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2003. p. 2985-3069
  6. Grace TG, Eversmann WW Jr. Forearm fractures: Tteatment by rigid fixation with early motion. J. Bone and Joint Surg 1980;62:433-8
  7. Boussakri H, Elibrahimi A, Bachiri M, Elidrissi M, Shimi M, Elmrini A. Nonunion of fractures of the ulna and radius diaphyses: clinical and radiological results of surgical treatment. Malays Orthop J 2016;10:27-34
  8. Tabor OB Jr, Bosse MJ, Sims SH, Kellam JF. Iatrogenic posterior interosseous nerveinjury: is transosseous static locked nailing of the radius feasible? J OrthopTrauma 1995;9:427-9
  9. Behnke NM, Redjal HR, Nguyen VT, Zinar DM. Internal fixation of diaphyseal fractures of the forearm: a retrospective comparison of hybrid fixation versus dual plating. J Orthop Trauma 2012;26:611-6
  10. Bartoniček J, Kozanek M, Jupiter JB. History of operative treatment of forearm diaphyseal fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2014;39:335-42
  11. Sage FP. Medullary fixation of fractures of the forearm. A study of the medullary canal of the radius and a report of fifty fractures of the Radius treated with a prebent triangular nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1959;41-A:1489-516
  12. Groover MT, Hinkley JR, Gerow DE, Bamberger HB, Evans J, Gazaille RE. The effect of metal instrumentation on patient and surgical team scatter radiation exposure using mini C-arm in a simulated forearm fracture fixation model. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2019;3:e089
  13. Anderson LD, Sisk D, Tooms RE, Park WI 3rd. Compression-plate fixation in acute diaphyseal fractures of the Radius and ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57