medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Acta Ortopédica Mexicana

ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2002, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2002; 16 (3)

Dyaphyseal humeral fractures treated by trapezoidal external fixation system

González-Ruiz O, Sánchez-Vázquez M, Padilla-Becerra F, Cisneros-García J, Redondo-Aquino G
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 163-165
PDF size: 193.72 Kb.


Key words:

humerus1fracture, external fixation.

ABSTRACT

Objectives. To evaluate the results of treatment for humeral shaft dyaphyseal fractures by a monoplanar external fixator, in which pins outline a “trapezoidal” design between the external rod and the humerus, as the pins direct their line of strenght towards the medial cortical of the fractured bone, aiming to concentrate the strenght of the system into the fracture focus. Material and methods. This method was applied in 34 male and female adult cases over 15 years, from April 1992 through December 1993, who had either recent or ancient humeral fracture. Pins were inserted at a converging angle of 30 degrees in order to perform a closing angle around the humeral fracture. Patients remained in hospital from 1 to 21 days, more in regard to their associated injuries than because of the humeral fracture. Postoperative follow-up was in average 18.5 weeks. Results. Bone union was achieved in 26 out of the 34 cases (74.3%) by the present method in an average of 14.5 weeks. The remaining 8 patients had humeral pseudoarthroses; 7 were treated by open reduction; 2 had have previous open reduction and late infection as a former treatment. Conclusion. Treatment of humeral fractures by the “trapezoidal” external fixation system allowed average good results in present series. Main recorded advantages are reduced time in hospital as well as preserving movement in all the affected upper extremity while in treatment.


REFERENCES

  1. Behrens F. A primer of fixator devices and configurations. Clin Orthop 1989; 241: 5-14.

  2. Behrens F. General theory and principles of external fixation. Clin Orthop 1989; 241: 15-23.

  3. Behrens F, Johnson W. Unilateral external fixation. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1989; 241: 48-57.

  4. Briggs B, Chao E. The mechanical performance of the standard Hoffmann vidal external fixation aparatus. J Bone Joint Surg 1982; 64(A): 566-73.

  5. Campbell. Cirugía ortopédica. Séptima edición, edit. Panamericana. Tomo II: 1557-1574.

  6. Castrillón J. Física. Edit. Enseñanza. 1999; 52-74.

  7. Chao E, et al. The effect of rigidity on fracture healing in external fixation. Clin Orthop 1989; 241: 24-35.

  8. De Bastiani G, Aldegheri R, Renzi L. The treatment of fractures with a dynamic axial fixator frame. J Bone Joint Surg 1984; 66(B); 538-45.

  9. Fernández A. Fijación externa modular en la urgencia con el sistema tubular AO. Primera edición, 1989: 5.

  10. Finlay JB. Stability of ten configurations of the Hoffmann external fixation frame. J Bone Joint Surg 1987; 69(A): 734-44.

  11. Green SA. Complications of external skeletal fixation. Clin Orthop 1983; 180: 109-116.

  12. Holm CL. Management of humeral shaft fractures. Clin Orthop 1970; 71: 132-139.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Acta Ortop Mex. 2002 May-Jun;16