Purpose We compared the radiological and clinical results of fixation for distal femoral fracture (DFF) using a locking compression plate (LCP) or a retrograde intramedullary nail (RIN). Materials and Methods From October 2003 to February 2020, 52 cases of DFF with a minimum 1-year follow-up (with a mean follow-up of 19.1 months) were included: 31 were treated with LCP and 21 with RIN. The operation time, blood loss, and hospitalization period were compared, and the incidence of postoperative nonunion, malunion, delayed union and metal failure and other post-operative complications were evaluated and compared. Results There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups, but the mean blood loss was significantly higher in the LCP group (LCP 683.5 ml vs RIN; 134.9 ml; p=0.015). In 49 out of 52 cases, bone union was achieved without additional surgery in an average of 6.8 months, and a complete union was achieved after additional surgery in three cases of nonunion (LCP 2 cases vs RIN 1 case; p=0.065). One case of malunion and superficial infection was confirmed in each group. Conclusion Internal fixation using LCP and RIN give good outcomes with a low complication rate and can therefore be considered useful surgical treatments for DFF.
A 45-year-old man with a remote history of a left above-the-knee amputation presented to the emergency department with left hip pain after a mechanical fall. This case was an operative challenge because commonly used intraoperative traction methods could not be applied to a patient with an above-the-knee amputation. We describe a rarely utilized surgical technique of applying traction to an amputated extremity via a Steinmann pin during closed reduction and internal fixation of an intertrochanteric fracture.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Periprosthetic Femur Fractures in Osseointegration Amputees Jason Shih Hoellwarth, S. Robert Rozbruch JBJS Case Connector.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand, was introduced and used as an anti-osteoporotic agent. Denosumab prevents bone resorption by inhibiting the differentiation and action of osteoclasts, resulting in an increase of bone mineral density and broad-spectrum anti-fracture efficacy. Clinical studies, including FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every Six Months) and its extension up to 10 years, FREEDOM Extension, demonstrated its long-term efficacy and safety in postmenopausal osteoporosis. In addition, the efficacy and safety of denosumab were confirmed in male osteoporosis and glucocorticoid- induced osteoporosis. Therefore, recent clinical guidelines recommend denosumab as an initial treatment. This review summarizes the mechanism of action, pharmacological characteristics, efficacy, and safety issue of denosumab.
With the discovery of screlostin as a pivotal player in bone metabolism, a novel medication targeting sclerostin has been introduced. Romosozumab, a humanized anti-sclerostin monoclonal antibody, is a unique approach to the treatment of osteoporosis that inhibits sclerostin, a key regulator that has the dual properties of promoting bone formation and inhibiting bone resorption. Romosozumab has been shown to be superior to conventional agents, in increasing bone mineral density and preventing osteoporotic fractures. Romosozumab may also be effective in the management of treatment-resistant osteoporosis and in the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in the very high risk population. However, further studies are necessary as there is insufficient data on its clinical efficacy and safety.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The 2024 Guidelines for Osteoporosis - Korean Society of Menopause: Part II Dong Ock Lee, Yeon Hee Hong, Moon Kyoung Cho, Young Sik Choi, Sungwook Chun, Youn-Jee Chung, Seung Hwa Hong, Kyu Ri Hwang, Jinju Kim, Hoon Kim, Dong-Yun Lee, Sa Ra Lee, Hyun-Tae Park, Seok Kyo Seo, Jung-Ho Shin, Jae Yen Song, Kyong Wook Yi, Haerin Paik, J Journal of Menopausal Medicine.2024; 30(2): 55. CrossRef