Literature DB >> 19492559

Telescoping versus non-telescoping rods in the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta.

Gamal El-Adl1, Mohamed A Khalil, Ahmed Enan, Mohamed F Mostafa, Mohamed R El-Lakkany.   

Abstract

A retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the results of telescoping (group I) versus non telescoping rods (group II) in the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta. Thirty-three lower limb segments in ten patients were studied (14 segments in group I and 19 segments in group II). The surgical techniques of Sofield and Miller (1959) and Lang-Stevenson and Sharrard (1984) for rod insertion were used. All cases were assessed clinically regarding mobility status, growth and limb-length, refracture, and infection. They were also assessed radiologically regarding rod migration, bone outgrowing the rod, incorrect T-piece placement, breakage and bending of rods. The average duration of follow-up was 86.2 months (range: 6 to 8 years). Mobility status and bone growth were better in group I than in group II patients. The overall implant related complication rate was 28.6% in group I in comparison to 68.4% in group II. Rod migration was twice more common in group II than in group I. Bone outgrowing the rod and breakage of rods with fracture was seen in group II only. The three-year survival rate for telescoping rods was 92.9% in contrast to 68.4% for non telescoping rods. The reoperation rate was 7.2% in group I and 31.6% in group II. From this comparative study it was clear that the results were significantly better after Sheffield rods with regard to mobility status, longevity of the rod, and the frequency of complications requiring reoperations. Also most of the complications were related to the technique of rod insertion and the type of rod.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19492559

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg        ISSN: 0001-6462            Impact factor:   0.500


  7 in total

Review 1.  New perspectives on osteogenesis imperfecta.

Authors:  Antonella Forlino; Wayne A Cabral; Aileen M Barnes; Joan C Marini
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 43.330

2.  Current and emerging treatments for the management of osteogenesis imperfecta.

Authors:  Elena Monti; Monica Mottes; Paolo Fraschini; Piercarlo Brunelli; Antonella Forlino; Giacomo Venturi; Francesco Doro; Silvia Perlini; Paolo Cavarzere; Franco Antoniazzi
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 2.423

3.  Custom hemiarthroplasties for retention of existing hardware associated with osteogenesis imperfecta.

Authors:  Kevin Nishida; Daniel Choi; Mathias Bostrom
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2017-03-03

4.  Impact of Transphyseal Elastic Nailing On the Histostructure of the Tibia in Growing Animals (Non-Randomized Controlled Experimental Study).

Authors:  Dmitrii A Popkov; Tamara A Silanteva; Elena N Gorbach; Eduard R Mingazov; Natalia A Kononovich; Arnold V Popkov
Journal:  Open Access Maced J Med Sci       Date:  2018-11-15

5.  Surgical Strategy to Decrease the Revision Rate of Fassier-Duval Nailing in the Lower Limbs of Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

Authors:  Yi-Chi Hung; Kai-Yuan Cheng; Hsiang-Yu Lin; Shuan-Pei Lin; Chen-Yu Yang; Shih-Chia Liu
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-07-15

Review 6.  Managing the patient with osteogenesis imperfecta: a multidisciplinary approach.

Authors:  Caroline Marr; Alison Seasman; Nick Bishop
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2017-04-04

7.  Effects of a telescopic intramedullary rod for treating patients with osteogenesis imperfecta of the femur.

Authors:  D L Rosemberg; E O Goiano; M Akkari; C Santili
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.548

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.