<p><strong>Background: </strong>The customary treatment of AIS is spinal fusion with instrumentation using rigid rods. In parallel, agents such as, curve magnitude, points of fixation, level instrument selection, curve flexibility, kind of anchor rods used for patients and post-operative care are the main factors affecting the outcome of surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total 50 patients was included in the study. The control group, which included 31 patients treated with Ti rods, was compared with an experimental group of 19 patients treated with CCM rods. Correction surgery was performed through posterior approach using rod-rotation maneuver after inserting a pedicle screw in each vertebrae within the fusion. Six-millimeter CCM and six-millimeter Ti rods were used in experimental and control groups, respectively. Pre and postoperative indices of coronal alignment and sagittal alignment were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistical difference between the two groups for age, sex, Risser’s stage, preoperative Cobb’s angle, type and flexibility of curvature. The correction rate of thoracic curve was 71.4±10.2% for the CCM group and 71.8±6.1% for the Ti group. There were no statistical differences between the two groups for all coronal and sagittal factors (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AIS cases with double curvature, there was no statistically significant difference between Ti and CCM rods for coronal and sagittal plane correction rates. The derivations from biomechanical studies do not translate into clinical situations.</p>
Background and Aim: Meniscus plays an important role in the knee, and thus, is being an important research topic for years. There are three different methods available for the treatment of Bucket handle meniscal tears, which are meniscectomy, meniscal repair with or without the uses of augmentation technique and the meniscal reconstruction. The aim of the research paper is to compare the results of meniscus repair over meniscectomy in bucket handle tear of medial meniscus. Materials and methods: It was a retrospective review of the prospectively collected data between January 2015 and December 2016 on the patients having bucket handle tear of medial meniscus, undergoing the ACL reconstruction. For this study, 30 patients were selected on the basis of the exclusion and inclusion criteria, who were equally distributed in Group A (Meniscus repair) and Group B (Menisectomy). Results: In the present study it is found that the mean age of the patient was 25.38years, majority of the patients were male participants and sports injury is found to be the major reason for the meniscal tear. Further, there is no significant difference in the mean of tunnel diameter, Lachman test, overall grades and radiographic grades between Group A and Group B. Conclusion:The study concluded that the results of the tunnel widening were found to be higher when the patient is treated with meniscectomy, and the results of Lachman test shows that meniscal repair is effective. On comparing the after results of both the meniscal repair and meniscectomy with the help of applying the radiological analysing, it is being found that meniscal repair offers better outcomes as compared to the meniscectomy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.