Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 4, Issue 11 | Pages 176 - 180
1 Nov 2015
Mirghasemi SA Rashidinia S Sadeghi MS Talebizadeh M Rahimi N

Objectives

There are various pin-in-plaster methods for treating fractures of the distal radius. The purpose of this study is to introduce a modified technique of ‘pin in plaster’.

Methods

Fifty-four patients with fractures of the distal radius were followed for one year post-operatively. Patients were excluded if they had type B fractures according to AO classification, multiple injuries or pathological fractures, and were treated more than seven days after injury. Range of movement and functional results were evaluated at three and six months and one and two years post-operatively. Radiographic parameters including radial inclination, tilt, and height, were measured pre- and post-operatively.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1274 - 1281
1 Sep 2014
Farhang K Desai R Wilber JH Cooperman DR Liu RW

Malpositioning of the trochanteric entry point during the introduction of an intramedullary nail may cause iatrogenic fracture or malreduction. Although the optimal point of insertion in the coronal plane has been well described, positioning in the sagittal plane is poorly defined.

The paired femora from 374 cadavers were placed both in the anatomical position and in internal rotation to neutralise femoral anteversion. A marker was placed at the apparent apex of the greater trochanter, and the lateral and anterior offsets from the axis of the femoral shaft were measured on anteroposterior and lateral photographs. Greater trochanteric morphology and trochanteric overhang were graded.

The mean anterior offset of the apex of the trochanter relative to the axis of the femoral shaft was 5.1 mm (sd 4.0) and 4.6 mm (sd 4.2) for the anatomical and neutralised positions, respectively. The mean lateral offset of the apex was 7.1 mm (sd 4.6) and 6.4 mm (sd 4.6), respectively.

Placement of the entry position at the apex of the greater trochanter in the anteroposterior view does not reliably centre an intramedullary nail in the sagittal plane. Based on our findings, the site of insertion should be about 5 mm posterior to the apex of the trochanter to allow for its anterior offset.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1274–81.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 87-B, Issue 3 | Pages 426 - 432
1 Mar 2005
Mueller CA Eingartner C Schreitmueller E Rupp S Goldhahn J Schuler F Weise K Pfister U Suedkamp NP

The treatment of fractures of the proximal tibia is complex and makes great demands on the implants used. Our study aimed to identify what levels of primary stability could be achieved with various forms of osteosynthesis in the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the proximal tibia. Pairs of human tibiae were investigated. An unstable fracture was simulated by creating a defect at the metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction. Six implants were tested in a uniaxial testing device (Instron) using the quasi-static and displacement-controlled modes and the force-displacement curve was recorded. The movements of each fragment and of the implant were recorded video-optically (MacReflex, Qualysis). Axial deviations were evaluated at 300 N. The results show that the nailing systems tolerated the highest forces. The lowest axial deviations in varus and valgus were also found for the nailing systems; the highest axial deviations were recorded for the buttress plate and the less invasive stabilising system (LISS). In terms of rotational displacement the LISS was better than the buttress plate. In summary, it was found that higher loads were better tolerated by centrally placed load carriers than by eccentrically placed ones. In the case of the latter, it appears advantageous to use additive procedures for medial buttressing in the early phase