The Locking Nail for the Humerus - Does it Fulfill the Expectations?

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (04) ◽  
pp. 178-186
Author(s):  
J. Verbruggen
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Tina Histing ◽  
Michael D. Menger ◽  
Tim Pohlemann ◽  
Romano Matthys ◽  
Tobias Fritz ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Man Cho ◽  
Kwang Min Park ◽  
Tae Gon Jung ◽  
Ji Yeon Park ◽  
Young Lee

Abstract Objective When a hip screw needs to be changed, choosing between the conventional (C-type) and helical blade (H-type) types is difficult. In this biomechanical study, we compared these two screw types relative to the type of the initial screw used. Methods C- or H-type screws were inserted (leading screw) in three types of polyurethane bone models (Sawbone, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Washington, USA: 130 × 180 × 40 mm) of different bone mineral densities (pounds per cubic feet [PCF] 5, 80 kg/m3; PCF 10, 160 kg/m3; and PCF 15, 240 kg/m3), and then successively or alternately inserted (following screw) after the leading screw removal. An original model (original C and H) of a leading screw without removal was created as a control. The strengths of resistance to pullout (PO) and rotational stress were measured. For each experimental condition, there were 30 experimental models. Results The original C screw was superior in PO strength, and the original H-type screw was superior in rotational strength. When the C- or H-type screw was the leading screw, using the C-type screw again as the following screw (C1-C2, H1-C2) showed the greatest resistance to PO, and using the H-type screw as the following screw (C1-H2, H1-H2) showed superior resistance to rotational strength. However, the rotational strength of the C2 screw decreased by more than 50% compared with that of the original C screw. Moreover, the PO and rotational strengths of the H2 screw decreased to less than 30% overall compared with those of the original H screw. Conclusion The H-type screw should be used for second-time screw insertion procedures in cases where it is difficult to choose between PO and rotational strengths.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-118
Author(s):  
L. N. Solomin ◽  
E. A. Shchepkina ◽  
K. L. Korchagin ◽  
F. K. Sabirov

Relevance. Deep infection after knee arthroplasty requires radical surgical treatment of the infection site, removal of endoprosthesis components, and an antimicrobial spacer placement. If revision knee arthroplasty is impossible, the «gold standard» for this kind of patients is knee joint arthrodesis. The purpose of the study was the comparative analysis of knee joint fusion by external and internal fixation. Materials and Methods. The analysis of 60 cases of knee arthrodesis was carried out. The patients were divided into two groups with 30 patients in each. In the first group, knee arthrodesis was performed with long locking nail, in the second group — with external ring fixation. We compared the groups by intraoperative and drainage blood loss, the inpatient treatment duration, the terms of fusion and complications registered. The patients quality of life was evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire before surgery, for the periods of 3, 6, and 12 months after the surgery. Results. The comparison of two methods of knee arthrodesis showed that blood loss in the internal fixation compared with external one, was 2.03 times more, the duration of inpatient treatment was 1.4 times less, and the total number of complications was 4.4 times less. However, the complications that affected the treatment outcome in long nail group were 1.5 times more. The differences in the average time of ankylosis formation were not statistically significant (p<0.05). The functional results of the treatment in 3 months after surgery in the group with internal fixation were much better. In 6 months after surgery the quality of life had no significant differences. In 12 months follow-up the indices in both groups were the same. Conclusion. The results of our study suggests us to think, knee joint arthrodesis by long fusion nail should be prefereble. If the nail insertion is technically impossible, and there is the high risk of deep infection recurrence, the external osteosynthesis should be used.


Orthopedics ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 1725-1727
Author(s):  
Dietmar Pennig ◽  
Erwin Brug ◽  
Hans-Lars Kronholz
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
pp. 73-98
Author(s):  
Pascal Boileau ◽  
Thomas d’Ollonne ◽  
Armodios M. Hatzidakis ◽  
Mark E. Morrey

2007 ◽  
Vol 463 ◽  
pp. 151-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Boer ◽  
Konrad Mader ◽  
Dietmar Pennig ◽  
Cees C P M Verheyen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document