medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8560 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión Científica de la Federación Mexicana de Colegios de Ortopedia y Traumatología, A.C. (FEMECOT)

2012, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Ortho-tips 2012; 8 (3)

Fracturas complejas del fémur proximal y su tratamiento

Mendoza CJR

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 171-178
PDF size: 164.19 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The treatment of the intertrochanteric fractures are well established, with union rates greater than 95% and with minimal complications with the different existing implants. Nevertheless, the unstable proximal femoral fractures (type AO 31 A 2.2 and 2.3 and subtrochanteric) have demonstrated to be of difficult management due to the reverse intertrochanteric fracture, the comminution of the greater trochanter and/or the lateral cortex, situation that increases the instability and difficult the management with the different known implant devices, being the reason to realize a revision and recommendation of the best way to treat and prevent the most common possible complications of the different used implants devices in the treatment of this type of fractures.


REFERENCES

  1. Fang Z, Zhi S, Huan Y. Less invasive stabilization system (LISS) versus proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in treating proximal femoral fractures: A prospective randomized study. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: 155-162.

  2. Kim WY, Han CH, Park JI, et al. Failure of intertrochanteric fracture fixation with a dynamic hip screw in relation to preoperative fracture stability and osteoporosis. Int Orthop 2001; 25: 360-362.

  3. Gupta RK, Kapil S, Pradeep K, et al. Unstable trochanteric fractures: the role of lateral Wall reconstruction. Int Orthop 2010; 34: 125-129.

  4. Pakuts AJ. Unstable subtrochanteric fractures-gamma nail versus dynamic condylar screw. Int Orthop 2004; 28: 21-24.

  5. Mark LP, Monica DC, Timothy A, et al. The effect of entry point in malalignement and iatrogenic fracture with the synthesis lateral entry femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma 2010; 24: 224-229.

  6. Windolf J, Hollander D Hakimi M, et al. Pitfalls and complications in the use of proximal femoral nail. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2006; 390: 59-65.

  7. Simmermacher RKJ, Ljungqvist J, Bail H, et al. The new femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of multicentre clinical study. Injury 2008; 39: 932-939.

  8. Marti A, Frankhauser C, Frank A, et al. Biomechanical evaluation if the less invasive stabilization system for the internal fixation of the distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15: 482-487.

  9. Zlowodski M, Williamson S, Cole PA, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the less invasive stabilization system, angled blade plate, and retrograde intramedullary nail for the internal fixation of distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 494-502.

  10. Sermon A, Boner V, Boger A, et al. Potential of Polymethylmethacrylate cement-augmented helical proximal femoral nail antirotational blades to improve implant stability. A biomechanical investigation in human cadaveric femoral heads. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 72: E54-59.

  11. Ampil FL, Sadasivan KK. Prophilactic and therapeutic fixation of weight bearing long bones with metastasic cancer. South Med J 2001; 94: 394-396.

  12. Wadell JP, Morton RN, Schemitsch EH. The role of total hip replacement inintertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop 2004; 429: 49-53.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com