Objective To study the effect of two different absorbable intramedullary nails in treatment of metacarpal and phalanx fractures.Methods From January 2002 to December 2002, open reduction and internal fixation were done with two different absorbable intramedullary nails in 60 cases of metacarpal and phalanx fractures( 52 cases of open fractures and 8 cases of closed fractures). The fracture locations were metacarpal in 24 cases, proximal phalanx in 22 casesand media phalanx in 14 cases. The emergency operation was performed in 47 cases, selective operation in 13 cases.Out of 60 patients, 24 were treated with intramedullary nails of poly-DL-lactic acid (PDLLA) (PDLLA group), 36 with intramedullary wire of PDLLA composed of chitosan(PDLLA+chitosan group). Results In the PDLLA group(n=24), the rejection occurred in 8 cases 3-4 weeks after operation. PDLLA nails were taken out in 6 of the 8 cases after 5-10 days of operation and bone healing was achieved 2 months after re-fixation by Kirschner wire; therejection subsided in the other 2 cases after 25 days of conservative treatment, and bone fracture healed after 14 weeks. No rejection was observed with primary healing in the other 16 cases of the PDLLA group. In PDLLA + chitosan group(n=36), the rejection occurred in 1 case 19 days after operation, but therejection subsided after 3 days of conservative treatment.No rejection was observed in the other 35 cases with primary healing. All patients were followed up 4-11 monthswith an average of 6 months. No rejection was observed and bone healing was achieved during the follow-up. The time of bone healing was 6-16 weeks(8 weeks onaverage). There was statistically significant difference in the curative resultbetween two groups(Plt;0.05). Conclusion Intramedullary nail of PDLLAwas verysuitable to fix fractures of metacarpal and phalanx. During the degradation of PDLLA, the acidic products can cause rejection. When PDLLA mixed with chitosan,PDLLA can not only strengthen the intensity but also neutralize the acidity. So the rejection can be decreased.PDLLA intramedullary nails composed of chitosan were better than PDLLA intramedullary nails in clinical treatment of metacarpal and phalanx fractures.
To provide the scientific theoretical basis for cl inical practice by comparing biomechanicalcharacteristics of single compressed plate with intramedullary pin, locking intramedullary nail and simple arm externalfixator with simple internal fixation devices. Methods Eighteen wet humeral bone specimens of adult cadaver were madecompl icated fracture models of humeral shaft and divided into 3 groups according to fixation methods. Fracture was fixed by single compressed plate with intramedullary pin in plate group, by locking intramedullary nail in intramedullary nail group and by external fixator with simple internal fixation devices in external fixator group. The intensity and rigidity of compl icated fracture models of humeral shaft was measured in compress test and torsion test. Results In compress test, the maximum load in plate group (6 162.09 ± 521.06) N and in intramedullary nail group (6 738.32 ± 525.89) N was significantly larger than that in external fixator group (2 753.57 ± 185.59) N (P lt; 0.05); but there was no significant difference between plate group and intramedullary nail group (P gt; 0.05). Under 600 N physiological compress load, the rigidity was (171.69 ± 6.49) N/mm in plate group, (333.04 ± 36.85) N/mm in intramedullary nail group and (132.59 ± 2.93) N/mm in external fixator group; showing no significant difference between plate group and external fixator group (P gt; 0.05), and showing significant difference between intramedullary nail group and plate, external fixator groups (P lt; 0.05). In torsion test, the maximum torque in plate group (38.24 ± 7.08) Nm was significantly larger than those in intramedullary nail group (17.12 ± 5.73) Nm and external fixator group (20.26 ± 6.42) Nm (P lt; 0.05), but there was no significant difference between intramedullary nail group and external fixator group (P gt; 0.05). Under 0.80 Nm physiological torque, the rigidity was (16.36 ± 2.07) Ncm/° in plate group and (18.79 ± 2.62) Ncm/° in external fixator group, which was significantly larger than that in intramedullary nail group (11.45 ± 0.22) Ncm/° (P lt; 0.05); but there was no significant difference between plate group and external fixator group (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Those fracture models fixed by single compressed plate with intramedullary pin have better compress and torsion intensity, they also have better torsion rigidity but less compress rigidity. Those fracture models fixed by locking intramedullary nail have better compress intensity but less torsion intensity, they also have better compress rigidity but less torsion rigidity. Those fracture models fixed by external fixator with simple internal fixation device have less compress and torsion intensity, they also have less compress rigidity but better torsion rigidity.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and dynamic hip screw (DHS) in the treatment of elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures. Methods Between May 2007 and May 2010, 63 elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures were treated, and fractures were fixed with PFNA in 31 patients (PFNA group) and with DHS in 32 patients (DHS group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, injury cause, disease duration, and fracture type between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Results All incisions healed by first intention. The incision length, operation time, and blood loss in PFNA group were significantly less than those in DHS group (P lt; 0.05). The averagefollow-up time was 13.6 months in PFNA group and was 13.8 months in DHS group. The fracture heal ing time was (11.80 ± 1.32) weeks in PFNA group and was (12.21 ± 1.26) weeks in DHS group, showing no significant difference (t=1.23, P=0.29). The complication rate was 0 in PFNA group and was 12.5% (4/32) in DHS group, showing no significant difference (P=0.06). After 1 year, Harris hip score of PFNA group (86.55 ± 10.32) was higher than that of DHS group (80.36 ±11.18) (t=2.28, P=0.03). Conclusion There are two surgical methods to treat intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly patient: PFNA and DHS, and each has advantages; for unstable intertrochanteric fractures, PFNA treatment is the first choice.
Objective To evaluate effectiveness of proximal femur bionic nail (PFBN) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly compared to the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Methods A retrospective analysis was made on 48 geriatric patients with intertrochanteric fractures, who met the selection criteria and were admitted between January 2020 and December 2022. Among them, 24 cases were treated with PFBN fixation after fracture reduction (PFBN group), and 24 cases were treated with PFNA fixation (PFNA group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as age, gender, cause of injury, side and type of fracture, time from injury to operation, and preoperative mobility score, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Alzheimer’s disease degree scoring, self-care ability score, osteoporosis degree (T value), and combined medical diseases between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of blood transfusions, transfusion volume, length of hospital stay, occurrence of complications, weight-bearing time after operation, and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, walking ability score, mobility score, self-care ability score were recorded and compared between the two groups. And the radiographic assessment of fracture reduction quality and postoperative stability, and fracture healing time were recorded. ResultsThe operations in both groups were successfully completed. All patients were followed up 6-15 months with an average time of 9.8 months in PFBN group and 9.6 months in PFNA group. The operation time was significantly longer in PFBN group than in PFNA group (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, number of blood transfusions, transfusion volume, length of hospital stay, change in activity ability score, and change in self-care ability score between the two groups (P>0.05). The weight-bearing time after operation was significantly shorter in PFBN group than in PFNA group (P<0.05), and the postoperative VAS score and walking ability score were significantly better in PFBN group than in PFNA group (P<0.05). Radiographic assessment showed no significant difference in fracture reduction scores and postoperative stability scores between the two groups (P>0.05). All fractures healed and there was no significant difference in fracture healing time between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of complications was significantly lower in PFBN group (16.7%, 4/24) than in PFNA group (45.8%, 11/24) (P<0.05). ConclusionCompared with PFNA, PFBN in the treatment of elderly intertrochanteric fractures can effectively relieve postoperative pain, shorten bed time, reduce the risk of complications, and facilitate the recovery of patients’ hip joint function and walking ability.
ObjectiveTo explore the efficacy and advantages of the lower extremity axial distractor assisted closed reduction and retrograde intramedullary nail internal fixation in the treatment of distal femoral fractures.MethodsThe clinical data of 49 patients with distal femoral fractures treated with retrograde intramedullary nail internal fixation between April 2016 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different methods of intraoperative reduction, the patients were divided into trial group (29 cases, using lower extremity axial distractor to assist closed reduction) and control group (20 cases, using free-hand retraction reduction). There was no significant difference in general information between the two groups (P>0.05), such as gender, age, side of injury, cause of injury, and fracture classification. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, and callus formation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. The function of the affected limb was evaluated according to the Schatzker-Lambert standard at 1 year after operation.ResultsAll patients successfully completed the operation. In the control group, there was 1 case with open reduction and internal fixation, and the rest of the two groups were closed reduction. There was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no complication such as vascular or nerve injury and iatrogenic fracture, etc. during and after operation, and the incisions healed by first intention. Except for 2 patients in the trial group who were lost to follow-up at 3 months after operation, the rest of the patients were followed up 12-36 months, with an average of 16.0 months. There was no significant difference in the callus formation time between the two groups (t=2.195, P=0.145). During the follow-up, postoperative knee joint stiffness occurred in 1 case in the control group, which improved by strengthening the knee joint function exercise and removing the internal fixator; the rest were not found to be associated with delayed or nonunion fractures, knee stiffness, and internal fixation complication. The function of the affected limb was evaluated according to the Schatzker-Lambert standard at 1 year after operation, the trial group achieved excellent results in 22 cases, good in 4 cases, and fair in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 96.3%; in the control group, the results were excellent in 16 cases, good in 3 cases, and fair in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate was 95.0%; showing no significant difference in the excellent and good rate between the two groups (χ2=0.451, P=0.502).ConclusionThe lower extremity axial distractor assisted closed reduction and retrograde intramedullary nailing for the treatment of distal femoral fractures is convenient, which has satisfactory efficacy.