Cargando…
COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES
Objective: The objective of this paper is to measure the volume occupied by the most widely used internal fixation devices for treating femoral neck fractures, using the first 30, 40 and 50 mm of insertion of each screw as an approximation. The study aimed to observe which of these implants caused l...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27047886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30024-0 |
_version_ | 1782422358249701376 |
---|---|
author | Lauxen, Daniel Schwartsmann, Carlos Roberto Silva, Marcelo Faria Spinelli, Leandro de Freitas Strohaecker, Telmo Roberto Souza, Ralf Wellis de Zimmer, Cinthia Gabriely Boschin, Leonardo Carbonera Gonçalves, Ramiro Zilles Yépez, Anthony Kerbes |
author_facet | Lauxen, Daniel Schwartsmann, Carlos Roberto Silva, Marcelo Faria Spinelli, Leandro de Freitas Strohaecker, Telmo Roberto Souza, Ralf Wellis de Zimmer, Cinthia Gabriely Boschin, Leonardo Carbonera Gonçalves, Ramiro Zilles Yépez, Anthony Kerbes |
author_sort | Lauxen, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: The objective of this paper is to measure the volume occupied by the most widely used internal fixation devices for treating femoral neck fractures, using the first 30, 40 and 50 mm of insertion of each screw as an approximation. The study aimed to observe which of these implants caused least bone aggression. Methods: Five types of cannulated screws and four types of dynamic hip screws (DHS) available on the Brazilian market were evaluated in terms of volume differences through water displacement. Results: Fixation with two cannulated screws presented significantly less volume than shown by DHS, for insertions of 30, 40 and 50 mm (p=0.01, 0.012 and 0.013, respectively), fixation with three screws did not show any statistically significant difference (p= 0.123, 0.08 and 0.381, respectively) and fixation with four cannulated screws presented larger volumes than shown by DHS (p=0.072, 0.161 and 0.033). Conclusions: Fixation of the femoral neck with two cannulated screws occupied less volume than DHS, with a statistically significant difference. The majority of screw combinations did not reach statistical significance, although fixation with four cannulated screws presented larger volumes on average than those occupied by DHS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4799483 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47994832016-04-04 COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES Lauxen, Daniel Schwartsmann, Carlos Roberto Silva, Marcelo Faria Spinelli, Leandro de Freitas Strohaecker, Telmo Roberto Souza, Ralf Wellis de Zimmer, Cinthia Gabriely Boschin, Leonardo Carbonera Gonçalves, Ramiro Zilles Yépez, Anthony Kerbes Rev Bras Ortop Original Article Objective: The objective of this paper is to measure the volume occupied by the most widely used internal fixation devices for treating femoral neck fractures, using the first 30, 40 and 50 mm of insertion of each screw as an approximation. The study aimed to observe which of these implants caused least bone aggression. Methods: Five types of cannulated screws and four types of dynamic hip screws (DHS) available on the Brazilian market were evaluated in terms of volume differences through water displacement. Results: Fixation with two cannulated screws presented significantly less volume than shown by DHS, for insertions of 30, 40 and 50 mm (p=0.01, 0.012 and 0.013, respectively), fixation with three screws did not show any statistically significant difference (p= 0.123, 0.08 and 0.381, respectively) and fixation with four cannulated screws presented larger volumes than shown by DHS (p=0.072, 0.161 and 0.033). Conclusions: Fixation of the femoral neck with two cannulated screws occupied less volume than DHS, with a statistically significant difference. The majority of screw combinations did not reach statistical significance, although fixation with four cannulated screws presented larger volumes on average than those occupied by DHS. Elsevier 2015-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4799483/ /pubmed/27047886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30024-0 Text en © 2012 Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Lauxen, Daniel Schwartsmann, Carlos Roberto Silva, Marcelo Faria Spinelli, Leandro de Freitas Strohaecker, Telmo Roberto Souza, Ralf Wellis de Zimmer, Cinthia Gabriely Boschin, Leonardo Carbonera Gonçalves, Ramiro Zilles Yépez, Anthony Kerbes COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES |
title | COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES |
title_full | COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES |
title_fullStr | COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES |
title_full_unstemmed | COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES |
title_short | COMPARISON OF VOLUMES OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT INTERNAL FIXATION DEVICES FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES |
title_sort | comparison of volumes occupied by different internal fixation devices for femoral neck fractures |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27047886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30024-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lauxendaniel comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT schwartsmanncarlosroberto comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT silvamarcelofaria comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT spinellileandrodefreitas comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT strohaeckertelmoroberto comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT souzaralfwellisde comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT zimmercinthiagabriely comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT boschinleonardocarbonera comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT goncalvesramirozilles comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures AT yepezanthonykerbes comparisonofvolumesoccupiedbydifferentinternalfixationdevicesforfemoralneckfractures |