The incidence rate of calcaneal fracture consists about 2% of all fractures, and, of the fracture, calcaneal tubercle avulsion fracture is known to be rare. To treat non-displaced calcaneal tubercle avulsion fracture, conservative treatment such as cast fixation is applied. However, most cases accompany displacement of the avulsion fragment, and, usually, surgery is necessary to treat the displaced fracture. Although surgical fixation simply by cancellous screw or tension wire is widely used, fixation failure is potential complication in this method. Thus, this study wants to introduce a prospective and useful method that further strengthens the calcaneal fixation by using both cannulated screw and tension band wiring.
PURPOSE Authors compare clinical and radiological results of internal fixation group and hemiarthroplasty group for comminuted proximal humerus fracture to find out which the treatment method have to be chose for comminuted proximal humerus fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients who were treated from March 2005 to March 2007 and available for 2 years follow-up were targets of this study. The internal fixation group had 38 cases, and hemiarthroplasty group included 26 cases. The results were analyzed both clinically and radiologically. RESULTS On average, Bone union took 15.6 weeks in the internal fixation group. Constant score between the internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty groups were on average 75+/-6.5 points and 70+/-7.4 points (p=0.034). In 3-part fracture, Constant score between both groups were 78+/-5.4 points from the former and 71+/-2 points, respectively (p=0.028). In 4-part fracture group, Constant score were 72+/-8 points for the internal fixation group and 69+/-9.2 points for the hemiarthroplasty group (p=0.041). CONCLUSION Internal plate fixation can gain better outcome than hemiarthroplasty in 4-part fracture as well as 3-part fracture of proximal humerus by careful dissection for preservation of blood supply for humeral head and optimal reduction.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Erik Hohmann, Natalie Keough, Vaida Glatt, Kevin Tetsworth European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.2022; 33(6): 2215. CrossRef
Effectiveness and Safety of Interventions for Treating Adults with Displaced Proximal Humeral Fracture: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review Long Chen, Fei Xing, Zhou Xiang, Ara Nazarian PLOS ONE.2016; 11(11): e0166801. CrossRef
Meta-analysis comparing locking plate fixation with hemiarthroplasty for complex proximal humeral fractures Jiezhi Dai, Yimin Chai, Chunyang Wang, Gen Wen European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.2014; 24(3): 305. CrossRef
PURPOSE To evaluate clinical results between early fixation group and delayed fusion group in treatment of intraarticular fracture of 4th, 5th metacarpal base. MATERIALS AND METHODS From March 2002 to December 2006, 21 cases of early fusion and 11 cases of delayed fusion of 4, 5th carpometacarpal joint were reviewed retrospectively or were included in this study. Average follow up period is 39.9 months. Bony union was checked by plain films at follow up. DASH-questionnaire, VAS pain scale, grip power and range of motion of 4th, 5th metacarpophalangeal joint were also checked at last follow up. RESULTS In radiologic study, bony union was confirmed in all cases of two groups. Early fixation group showed better outcomes than delayed fusion group in range of motion, DASH-questionnaire and VAS pain scale with statistical significant (p<0.004). CONCLUSION Because early fixation group showed better clinical outcomes than delayed fusion group, early diagnosis and proper surgical treatment are important for better outcomes in treatment of intraarticular fracture of 4th, 5th metacarpal base.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Fourth and Fifth Metacarpal Base Arthrodesis for Posttraumatic Arthritis of Fifth Carpometacarpal Joint Chul-Hyung Kang, Eun-Sok Son, Chul-Hyun Cho Journal of the Korean Society for Surgery of the Hand.2013; 18(4): 184. CrossRef