Bruno Bellaguarda Batista1, Rodrigo Salim1, Cleber Antonio Jansen Paccola2, Mauricio Kfuri Junior1. 1. 1. Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, 1. Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. 2. 2. (In memoriam), Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, 2. (In memoriam), Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate safety and reliability of internal fixator for the treatment of intra-articular and periarticular distal femur fractures. METHODS: Retrospective data evaluation of 28 patients with 29 fractures fixed with internal fixator was performed. There was a predominance of male patients (53.5%), with 52% of open wound fractures, 76% of AO33C type fractures, and a mean follow up of 21.3 months. Time of fracture healing, mechanical axis deviation, rate of infection and postoperative complications were registered. RESULTS: Healing rate was 93% in this sample, with an average time of 5.5 months. Twenty-seven percent of patients ended up with mechanical axis deviation, mostly resulting from poor primary intra-operative reduction. There were two cases of implant loosening; two implant breakage, and three patients presented stiff knee. No case of infection was observed. Healing rate in this study was comparable with current literature; there was a high degree of angular deviation, especially in the coronal plane. CONCLUSION: Internal fixators are a breakthrough in the treatment of knee fractures, but its use does not preclude application of principles of anatomical articular reduction and mechanical axis restoration.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate safety and reliability of internal fixator for the treatment of intra-articular and periarticular distal femur fractures. METHODS: Retrospective data evaluation of 28 patients with 29 fractures fixed with internal fixator was performed. There was a predominance of male patients (53.5%), with 52% of open wound fractures, 76% of AO33C type fractures, and a mean follow up of 21.3 months. Time of fracture healing, mechanical axis deviation, rate of infection and postoperative complications were registered. RESULTS: Healing rate was 93% in this sample, with an average time of 5.5 months. Twenty-seven percent of patients ended up with mechanical axis deviation, mostly resulting from poor primary intra-operative reduction. There were two cases of implant loosening; two implant breakage, and three patients presented stiff knee. No case of infection was observed. Healing rate in this study was comparable with current literature; there was a high degree of angular deviation, especially in the coronal plane. CONCLUSION: Internal fixators are a breakthrough in the treatment of knee fractures, but its use does not preclude application of principles of anatomical articular reduction and mechanical axis restoration.
Authors: Michael Schütz; Mathias Müller; Pietro Regazzoni; Dankward Höntzsch; Christian Krettek; Christian Van der Werken; Norbert Haas Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Michael Zlowodzki; Scott Williamson; Peter A Cole; Lyle D Zardiackas; Philip J Kregor Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.512