Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft

Ch, Chen; Chen, Tai Bin; Cheng, Yuh Min; Chang, Jyh-Jong; Lin, Sen; Hung, Shih-Ya

doi:10.1016/s0020-1383(00)00096-6

Cited by 44 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It achieves a union rate of 77 to 93% in the femoral shaft and 93 to 100% in the femoral neck, with 77 to 93% of patients achieving good outcomes. 6,16,17 A high incidence of infection was reported after plating for femoral shaft fractures. 4,9 In our series, 2 (5%) patients developed deep infection, which resolved after debridement and antibiotic treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attributed mechanisms include axial compression against the acetabular roof, with hip adduction or abduction. 3 Various techniques and implants have been developed to manage such fractures including: (1) an antegrade intramedullary nail with cannulated cancellous screws, 4,5 (2) a dynamic compression plate (DCP) with a dynamic hip screw (DHS) or cannulated cancellous screws, 6 (3) a retrograde intramedullary nail with cancellous screws, 7 and (4) a reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail. 8,9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamic Hip Screw and Compression Plate Fixation of Ipsilateral Femoral Neck and Shaft Fractures

Abalo

Dossim

Bangna

et al. 2008

J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To evaluate surgical outcomes of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Methods. Between April 1997 and September 2004, 29 men and 8 women (mean age, 37 years) underwent fixation of femoral neck and shaft fractures using a dynamic compression plate plus a dynamic hip screw or screws. There were 30 femoral neck and 7 pertrochanteric fractures. Functional results were assessed according to the Friedman and Wyman classification. Results. The mean follow-up period was 49 months. Of the femoral neck fractures, 34 united in a mean of 4 months; 33 of them healed anatomically and one with a 6º varus angulation. No osteonecrosis of the femoral head was noted. Of the femoral shaft fractures, 32 united in a mean of 6 months, 5 were non-unions (2 persisted even after revision surgery). Seven patients developed infections (5 superficial and 2 deep), which resolved with debridement and antibiotic treatment. Surgery 2008;16(1):35-8 shaft fractures is reliable in achieving bone union with few complications. Journal of Orthopaedic

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Hip Screw and Compression Plate Fixation of Ipsilateral Femoral Neck and Shaft Fractures

Abalo

Dossim

Bangna

et al. 2008

J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both of the treatment strategies utilized as a part of the present investigation accomplished agreeable utilitarian result in these mind boggling fractures. A reconstruction nail is favorable as far as conceivable closed antegrade nailing with negligible cut, and decreased blood misfortune and natural fixation of the two fractures with a solitary embed [21] . Fixation with plates for the pole and screws or DHS for the hip is simple from a specialized point of view.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures: An analysis of two treatment methods

2017

Int. J. Orthop. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures are extraordinary wounds that present a surgical challenge. It happens in roughly 6% to 9% of all femoral shaft fractures. In spite of this moderately basic introduction, decision-making frequently is troublesome. The principle target of this article is to think about treatment techniques in ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Materials and Methods: A sum of 24 patients with ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft decision-making fractures were treated with PFNA-long or different plate mixes. We isolated patients into two gatherings. Gathering I included 13 patients who experienced surgery with cancellous lag screws or dynamic hip screws (DHS) joined with compression plate fixation. Gathering II included 11 patients who experienced surgery with reconstruction-type intramedullary nailing. Result: The mean age was 31 and 34 years in Group I and Group II, respectively. The normal follow-up periods were 19.9 and 20.2 months for bunches I and II, separately. Normal union time for femoral neck crack in Group I and Group II were 13.7 and 15.1 weeks, individually, and for shaft breaks, these time were 19 and 21 weeks, separately. There were 8 (61%) great, 4 (30%) reasonable practical outcomes in Group I. There were 8 (72%) great, 2 (19%) reasonable, and 1 (10%) poor practical outcomes in Group II. One instance of embed disappointment and nonunion of the femoral shaft fracture happened in group I. Conclusion: Both treatment strategies accomplished acceptable useful results in patients with ipsilateral basicervical femoral neck and shaft fractures.

show abstract

“…Desarrollados para el tratamiento de fracturas de la región supracondílea, se utilizan también en algunos casos en fracturas subtrocanterianas. Están diseñados según los principios del DHS, son más gruesos y resistentes, y el ángulo placa-cilindro tiende a ser recto (1,(16)(17)(18) (Figura 11). E. Placas: Existen diferentes modelos, fabricadas de acero inoxidable o de titanio, tienen varios agujeros y se colocan sobre la superficie de los huesos, aseguradas con tornillos.…”

Section: Elementos De Fijación Internaunclassified

Elementos De Osteosintesis De Uso Habitual en Fracturas Del Esqueleto Apendicular: Evaluacion Radiologica

M¹,

T²

2005

Rev. chil. radiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

58tanto, conocerlos, especialmente los usados en nuestros lugares de trabajo, y saber qué parámetros debemos evaluar para un mejor informe radiológico.De las múltiples intervenciones sobre el hueso un común denominador son los elementos de osteosíntesis (OTS), aparatos mecánicos construidos principalmente de acero inoxidable, titanio o elementos biodegradables.Centraremos nuestra revisión en las fracturas del esqueleto apendicular, que es la patología ósea de mayor frecuencia. Ellas pueden ser tratadas con: a) Métodos cerrados, en los que se hace reducción cerrada, estabilización e inmovilización con yeso y menos comúnmente con aparatos de tracción. b) Métodos abiertos, en los que la reducción es quirúrgica o percutánea, y se efectúa estabilización y fijación interna con aparatos de OTS. c) Métodos externos con reducción, estabilización y uso de fijadores externos.Cada vez que es posible, la mayoría de los traumatólogos prefiere tratar con reducción cerrada, recuperación del alineamiento óseo y estabilización con aparatos de tracción o compresión externa, como valvas o yesos. En caso contrario, efectúan la fijación quirúrgica con reducción anatómica de los fragmentos y mantención con algún sistema de fijación, preservando el flujo sanguíneo al hueso y tejidos blandos, utilizando la técnica menos traumática posible para permitir una rápida cicatrización, recuperación precoz de la movilidad y función completa del miembro dañado.La concepción actual, sin embargo, es buscar la reducción más fisiológica posible y no necesariamente un alineamiento perfecto. Elementos utilizados en el tratamiento cerrado u ortopédico.Su objetivo principal es promover la formación de callo externo, estimulándolo con recuperación precoz de la actividad muscular, del movimiento articular y transmisión de carga. La fractura se reduce, estabiliza e inmoviliza mediante maniobras externas al foco, sin alteración del flujo sanguíneo. Abstract: Coping with orthopaedic hardware imaging has always been difficult for radiologists. We don't know adequately fixation devices implemented in fracture fixation, their characteristics, biomechanical principles, potential complications and how to report them properly. The following is a revision of these topics and suggestions in order to improve our skills in reporting as well. ELEMENTOS DE OSTEOSINTESIS DE USO HABITUAL EN FRACTURAS DEL ESQUELETO APENDICULAR

show abstract

Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft

Cited by 44 publications

References 13 publications

Dynamic Hip Screw and Compression Plate Fixation of Ipsilateral Femoral Neck and Shaft Fractures

Dynamic Hip Screw and Compression Plate Fixation of Ipsilateral Femoral Neck and Shaft Fractures

Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures: An analysis of two treatment methods

Elementos De Osteosintesis De Uso Habitual en Fracturas Del Esqueleto Apendicular: Evaluacion Radiologica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About