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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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