| dc.creator |
DAĞTAŞ, Mirza Zafer; Maltepe Üniversitesi |
|
| dc.creator |
UNAL, Ömer Kays; MALTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ORTOPEDİ VE TRAVMATOLOJİ ANABİLİM DALI |
|
| dc.date |
2021-09-13T00:00:00Z |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2021-12-03T11:46:56Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2021-12-03T11:46:56Z |
|
| dc.identifier |
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sdutfd/issue/64881/856822 |
|
| dc.identifier |
10.17343/sdutfd.856822 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://acikerisim.sdu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/123456789/94156 |
|
| dc.description |
AmaçBu çalışmanın amacı iki farklı tipte proksimal femurçivisi (PFÇ) kullanılarak internal fiksasyon uygulananintertrokanterik femur kırığı (İTK) olgularında fonksiyonelve radyolojik sonuçların karşılaştırılmasıdır.Gereç ve YöntemBu çalışmada 1 Ocak 2012 – 31 Aralık 2018 tarihleriarasında kliniğimizde İTK nedeniyle ameliyat edilenhastaların dosyaları retrospektif olarak incelendi. Olgularuygulanan PFÇ tipine göre Profin ve İnterTanolmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı.Bulgular78 olgunun 41’i Profin, 37’si İnterTAN grubundaydı. Olguların%47,4’ü erkek, yaş ortalaması 74,12 ± 8,91’di.İnterTan grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında, Profin grubundaskopi süresi ve mobilizasyona kadar geçen süreistatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde daha fazlaydı (sırasıyla,p = 0,002, p = 0,037). Profin grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında,İnterTan grubunda hastanede yatış süresiistatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde daha fazlaydı (p =0,001). Operasyondan bir yıl sonra değerlendirilen femurboyun açısı İnterTan grubunda istatistiksel olarakanlamlı düzeyde daha fazlaydı (p |
|
| dc.description |
ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the functionaland radiological results of intertrochanteric femoralfractures (İTF) patients who underwent internalfixation using two different types of proximal femoralnails (PFN).Materials and MethodsIn this study, the files of patients who were operatedfor İTF in our clinic between January 1, 2012 andDecember 31, 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.The cases were divided into two groups as Profin andInterTan according to the type of PFN applied.Results41 of 78 cases were in Profin group and 37 were inInterTAN group. 47.4% of the cases were male, themean age was 74.12 ± 8.91. When compared to theInterTan group, the duration of fluoroscopy and timeto mobilization were significantly higher in the Profingroup (p = 0.002, p = 0.037, respectively). The durationof hospital stay was statistically significantly higher inthe InterTan group compared to the Profin group (p =0.001). The femoral neck angle evaluated one yearafter the operation was statistically significantly higherin the InterTan group (p |
|
| dc.format |
application/pdf |
|
| dc.language |
tr |
|
| dc.publisher |
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi |
|
| dc.publisher |
Süleyman Demirel University |
|
| dc.relation |
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1497264 |
|
| dc.source |
Volume: 28, Issue: 3
441-447 |
en-US |
| dc.source |
1300-7416 |
|
| dc.source |
2602-2109 |
|
| dc.source |
SDÜ Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi |
|
| dc.subject |
İntertrokanterik femur kırığı,proksimal femoral çivi,Harris kalça skoru |
|
| dc.subject |
Intertrochanteric femur fracture,proximal femoral nail,Harris hip score |
|
| dc.title |
İNTERTROKANTERİK FEMUR KIRIKLARININ TEDAVİSİNDE KULLANILAN İKİ FARKLI PROKSİMAL FEMUR ÇİVİSİNİN KLİNİK VE RADYOLOJİK SONUÇLARI |
tr-TR |
| dc.title |
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS OF TWO DIFFERENT PROXIMAL FEMUR NAILS USED IN THE TREATMENT OF INTERTROCHANTERIC FEMUR FRACTURES |
en-US |
| dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
|
| dc.citation |
1. Peizhen H, Xinmin C, Liqin Z, Ziling L, Hang D, Qunbin C, et al. Osteoporosis effects on the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of femur with proximal femoral anti-rotation intramedullary nail: a finite element simulation. Chinese J Tissue Eng Res 2020; 24(24): 3808. |
|
| dc.citation |
2. Adeyemi A, Delhougne G. Incidence and economic burden of intertrochanteric fracture: a Medicare claims database analysis. JBJS Open Access 2019; 4(1). |
|
| dc.citation |
3. Min B-W, Lee K-J, Oh J-K, Cho C-H, Cho J-W, Kim B-S. The treatment strategies for failed fixation of intertrochanteric fractures. Injury 2019; 50(7): 1339-46. |
|
| dc.citation |
4. Xue D, Yu J, Zheng Q, Feng G, Li W, Pan Z, et al. The treatment strategies of intertrochanteric fractures nonunion: An experience of 23 nonunion patients. Injury 2017; 48(3): 708-14. |
|
| dc.citation |
5. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2010; (9). |
|
| dc.citation |
6. Myderrizi N. Proximal femoral nailing is better choice in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture in elderly people. Int J Surg 2016; 3(2): 781-5. |
|
| dc.citation |
7. Xu Z, Zhang M, Yin J, Ren L, Zeng Y. Redisplacement after reduction with intramedullary nails in surgery of intertrochanteric fracture: cause analysis and preventive measures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135(6): 751-8. |
|
| dc.citation |
8. Uzer G, Elmadağ NM, Yıldız F, Bilsel K, Erden T, Toprak H. Comparison of two types of proximal femoral hails in the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. TJTES 2015; 21(5): 385-91. |
|
| dc.citation |
9. Duramaz A, İlter MH. The impact of proximal femoral nail type on clinical and radiological outcomes in the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures: a comparative study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29(7): 1441-9. |
|
| dc.citation |
10. Mayhew D, Mendonca V, Murthy B. A review of ASA physical status–historical perspectives and modern developments. Anaesthesia 2019; 74(3): 373-9. |
|
| dc.citation |
11. Papasimos S, Koutsojannis C, Panagopoulos A, Megas P, Lambiris E. A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125(7): 462-8. |
|
| dc.citation |
12. Werner-Tutschku W, Lajtai G, Schmiedhuber G, Lang T, Pirkl C, Orthner E. Intra-and perioperative complications in the stabilization of per-and subtrochanteric femoral fractures by means of PFN. Der Unfallchirurg 2002; 105(10): 881. |
|
| dc.citation |
13. Strauss EJ, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, Egol KA. The “Z‐effect” phenomenon defined: A laboratory study. J Orthop Res 2007; 25(12): 1568-73. |
|
| dc.citation |
14. Kouvidis G, Sakellariou V, Mavrogenis A, Stavrakakis J, Kampas D, Galanakis J, et al. Dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail versus the classic sliding hip screw for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective randomized study. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2012; 7(3): 155-62. |
|
| dc.citation |
15. Kouvidis GK, Sommers MB, Giannoudis PV, Katonis PG, Bottlang M. Comparison of migration behavior between single and dual lag screw implants for intertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Surg Res 2009; 4(1): 1-9. |
|
| dc.citation |
16. Kubiak EN, Bong M, Park SS, Kummer F, Egol K, Koval KJ. Intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: one or two lag screws. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18(1): 12-7. |
|
| dc.citation |
17. Lin J. Encouraging results of treating femoral trochanteric fractures with specially designed double-screw nails. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2007; 63(4): 866-74. |
|
| dc.citation |
18. Ponce S, Laird M, Waddell J. Intramedullary nailing in pertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2014; 40(3): 241-7. |
|
| dc.citation |
19. Mavrogenis AF, Panagopoulos GN, Megaloikonomos PD, Igoumenou VG, Galanopoulos I, Vottis CT, et al. Complications after hip nailing for fractures. Orthopedics 2016; 39(1): e108-e16. |
|
| dc.citation |
20. Henschel J, Eberle S, Augat P. Load distribution between cephalic screws in a dual lag screw trochanteric nail. J Orthop Surg Res 2016; 11(1): 41. |
|
| dc.citation |
21. Ozkan K, Eceviz E, Unay K, Tasyikan L, Akman B, Eren A. Treatment of reverse oblique trochanteric femoral fractures with proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop 2011; 35(4): 595-8. |
|
| dc.citation |
22. Ertürer RE, Sönmez MM, Sari S, Seckin MF, Kara A, Öztürk I. Intramedullary osteosynthesis of instable intertrochanteric femur fractures with Profin® nail in elderly patients. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2012; 46(2): 107-12. |
|
| dc.citation |
23. Koyuncu Ş, Altay T, Kayalı C, Ozan F, Yamak K. Mechanical failures after fixation with proximal femoral nail and risk factors. Clin Interv Aging 2015; 10: 1959. |
|