Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025
Comparative Outcomes of Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Fixation in the Management of Both-Bone Forearm Fractures.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sharma Ashish, Singh Vanchhit, Yadav Mulayam Singh, Gidwani Gaurav
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Both-bone forearm fractures are common orthopedic injuries requiring surgical intervention to restore function and stability. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) and plate fixation (PF) are two widely used techniques for managing these fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients aged 18-50 years with diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna were included in this prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (IMN, n = 50) and Group B (PF, n = 50). Surgical procedures were performed following standard protocols. Postoperative evaluations included functional assessment using the Grace and Eversmann criteria, time to union, complication rates, and range of motion (ROM) measurements at 3, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was conducted using the chi-square test and Student's t-test, with a significance level set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean union time was significantly shorter in the IMN group (10.2 ± 2.1 weeks) compared to the PF group (12.8 ± 3.4 weeks, P = 0.03). Functional outcomes were excellent or good in 88% of IMN patients and 84% of PF patients at the 12-month follow-up. Complication rates were slightly higher in the IMN group (14%) than in the PF group (10%), with infection and implant irritation being the most common issues. ROM was comparable between the groups, with no significant differences in supination and pronation.
CONCLUSION: Both IMN and PF provide reliable fixation for both-bone forearm fractures, with favorable functional and radiological outcomes. IMN demonstrated a shorter union time, while PF showed a marginally lower complication rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients aged 18-50 years with diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna were included in this prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (IMN, n = 50) and Group B (PF, n = 50). Surgical procedures were performed following standard protocols. Postoperative evaluations included functional assessment using the Grace and Eversmann criteria, time to union, complication rates, and range of motion (ROM) measurements at 3, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was conducted using the chi-square test and Student's t-test, with a significance level set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean union time was significantly shorter in the IMN group (10.2 ± 2.1 weeks) compared to the PF group (12.8 ± 3.4 weeks, P = 0.03). Functional outcomes were excellent or good in 88% of IMN patients and 84% of PF patients at the 12-month follow-up. Complication rates were slightly higher in the IMN group (14%) than in the PF group (10%), with infection and implant irritation being the most common issues. ROM was comparable between the groups, with no significant differences in supination and pronation.
CONCLUSION: Both IMN and PF provide reliable fixation for both-bone forearm fractures, with favorable functional and radiological outcomes. IMN demonstrated a shorter union time, while PF showed a marginally lower complication rate.