KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Experimental Biomedical Research / 2021 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4

Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union?

Burçin KARSLI
Volkan KILINÇOĞLU
Sezgin Bahadır TEKİN
Sayfa
262–269
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
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)

In addition, NUSS can provide information about thetreatment process of non-unions.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of the non-union scoring system (NUSS) in predicting the result and inguiding the treatment by comparing the treatment methods applied to non-union patients we treat in our clinicwith the treatment methods suggested by the NUSS.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: The study included 116 patients, who were diagnosed with long bone (femur, tibia and humerus)non-union and treated in our clinic.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In addition, NUSS can provide information about thetreatment process of non-unions.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of the non-union scoring system (NUSS) in predicting the result and inguiding the treatment by comparing the treatment methods applied to non-union patients we treat in our clinicwith the treatment methods suggested by the NUSS. Methods: The study included 116 patients, who were diagnosed with long bone (femur, tibia and humerus)non-union and treated in our clinic. Of the 116 patients with non-union, 48 had femur (41.38 %), 39 had tibia(33.62%) and 29 had humerus (25%) non-union. The patient scores were calculated according to the NUSScriteria. The patients were divided into four groups according to their total scores. There were 34 patients inthe first group (0-25 points), 49 patients in the second group (26-50 points), 30 patients in the third group (51- 75 points) and three patients in the fourth group (76-100 points).Results: Union that was achieved in 79 (68.10%) of all patients was detected in 97.05% of the patients in thefirst group, 83.67% in the second group, and 16.66 % in the third group. Amputation, arthroplasty andarthrodesis were applied to three patients in the fourth group. While union rate was 100 % in the femur andtibia in the first group, it was 90% in the humerus. The union rates were 85.71% in the humerus, 75% in thefemur and 100% in the tibia in the second group. They were 20 % in the humerus, 15.38% in the femur and16.66% in the tibia in the third group. The number of patients treated with the treatment proposed by the NUSS:100% in the group 1, 83.67% in the group 2, 20% in the group 3 and 100% in the group 4. The risk of non union in those who were not treated according to the NUSS recommendations was 28 times higher than thatof others. Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that more frequent use of the NUSS procedure in non-uniontreatment planning may increase treatment success. In addition, NUSS can provide information about thetreatment process of non-unions.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KARSLI, B., KILINÇOĞLU, V., TEKİN, S. B. (2022). Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union?. Experimental Biomedical Research, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 4, 262–269. https://ajindex.com/articles/512601

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Bhandari M, Fong K, Sprague S, et al. Variability in the definition and perceived causes of delayed unions and nonunions: a cross-sectional, multinational survey of orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(15):e1091-96. [2]Fayaz HC, Giannoudis PV, Vrahas MS, et al. The role of stem cells in fracture healing and nonunion. Int Orthop. 2011;35(11):1587-97. [3]Tzioupis C, Giannoudis PV. Prevalence of long-bone non-unions. Injury. 2007;38 Suppl 2:S3-9. [4]Weber BG, Cech O. Pseudarthrosis. Grune and Stratton, New York; 1976. [5]Catagni MA. Treatment of fractures, nonunions, and bone loss of the tibia with the Ilizarov method. Ed Maiocchi AB;1998. 7:90. [6]Paley D, Catagni MA, Argnani F, et al. Ilizarov treatment of tibial nonunions with bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(241):146-65. [7]Calori GM, Phillips M, Jeetle S, Tagliabue L, Giannoudis PV. Classification of nonunion: need for a new scoring system? Injury. 2008;39 Suppl 2:S59-63. [8]Calori GM, Colombo M, Mazza EL, et al. Validation of the Non-Union Scoring System in 300 long bone non-unions. Injury. 2014;45 Suppl 6:S93-97. [9]Megas P. Classification of non-union. Injury. 2005;36 Suppl 4:S30-7. [10]Frölke JP, Patka P. Definition and classification of fracture non-unions. Injury. 2007;38 Suppl 2:S19-22. [11]Abumunaser LA, Al-Sayyad MJ. Evaluation of the calori et Al nonunion scoring system in a retrospective case series. Orthopedics. 2011;34(5):359. [12]van Basten Batenburg M, Houben IB, Blokhuis TJ. The Non-Union Scoring System: an interobserver reliability study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019;45(1):13- 19.