Journal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong) · 2008
Proximal femoral nail failures in extracapsular fractures of the hip.
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.
Ballal M S G, Emms N, Thomas G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review patients with proximal femoral nails (PFNs) in our hospital that developed complications and needed revision.
METHODS: Between January 2000 and June 2006, records of 216 patients with PFN fixations for traumatic extracapsular trochanteric fractures (n=160), pathological fractures (n=23), and as a prophylactic measure for metastasis (n=33) were retrospectively reviewed. The injury mechanism, reduction technique and quality, and time to and cause of implant failure were recorded.
RESULTS: 12 PFNs failed: 8 in the trauma group, 3 in the pathological group, and one in the prophylactic nailing group. Two PFNs broke at the proximal lag screw level at a later stage secondary to non-union of the pathological fractures. One broke at the level of the distal locking screw at an early stage, as the locking holes were too close to the fracture.
CONCLUSION: Poorly reduced fractures tend to fail early, whereas late failures are due to non-union. Good reduction with minimal dissection, the use of appropriate nail length, and proper positioning of the nail and screws are necessary to avoid failure or revision.
METHODS: Between January 2000 and June 2006, records of 216 patients with PFN fixations for traumatic extracapsular trochanteric fractures (n=160), pathological fractures (n=23), and as a prophylactic measure for metastasis (n=33) were retrospectively reviewed. The injury mechanism, reduction technique and quality, and time to and cause of implant failure were recorded.
RESULTS: 12 PFNs failed: 8 in the trauma group, 3 in the pathological group, and one in the prophylactic nailing group. Two PFNs broke at the proximal lag screw level at a later stage secondary to non-union of the pathological fractures. One broke at the level of the distal locking screw at an early stage, as the locking holes were too close to the fracture.
CONCLUSION: Poorly reduced fractures tend to fail early, whereas late failures are due to non-union. Good reduction with minimal dissection, the use of appropriate nail length, and proper positioning of the nail and screws are necessary to avoid failure or revision.