We compare clinically and radiologically two groups of total trapezectomy performed as treatment for the primary osteoarthritis of trapeziometacarpal joint combined in 83 cases (2000 to 2003) with tendon interposition arthroplasty type Weilby, in 51 cases (1987 to 1991) with Epping tendon interposition and ligament reconstruction arthroplasty in a retrospective study. In both groups we used a strip of the flexor carpi radialis tendon. The mean follow-up time in both groups is 33 months. Overall, both methods achieved similar results. The relief of pain and the patient satisfaction are better, stability and grip force are worse in the Weilby group. At least one year (12 to 57 months) after operation with the technique of Weilby, 88 % of the patients would prefer this method for the other side. It appears that there is no clinical and radiological benefit of ligament reconstruction. However, the two procedures studied yield equally good results in most cases, but we prefer the simple technique of Weilby and guess that the (missing) long-term results would be superior to the results after trapezectomy alone. Long-term results need to be evaluated.
Septic arthritis of finger joints should be early recognized and immediately treated with surgery and antibiotics, in order to avoid cartilage damage. If cartilage is already damaged, primary arthrodesis with the use of an external fixation is indicated.
versorgten wir eine Patientengruppe mit medialen Schenkelhalsfrakturen (SHF) ungeachtet des Patientenalters und des Frakturtyps mit Gleitschrauben, die skandinavischen Implantaten gleichen (35 ). Wir verglichen die Resultate mit jenen Patienten, die in derselben Periode eine unipolare Kopfprothese (112 ) erhielten, sowie mit den früher durchgeführten Osteosynthesen mit aufsteigenden (17 ) und horizontalen (26 ) Spongiosaschrauben. Die mit Gleitschrauben versorgten Patienten waren 17 Jahre älter als diejenigen mit anderen Osteosynthesen. Trotzdem ist die Pseudarthrose-(9%) und Kopfnekroserate (20 %) vergleichbar. Bei den durchschnittlich noch 9 Jahre älteren Kopfprothesenpatienten betrug die Reoperationsrate innerhalb von 5 Jahren 12% gegenüber total 54% nach Gleitschrauben. Die Komplikationsrate nach Schraubenosteosynthesen ist dabei vorwiegend vom Frakturtyp (Garden III/IV) und viel weniger vom Alter und Schraubentyp abhängig. Die bei Osteosynthesen notwendigen Nachkontrollen sind für betagte Patienten oft beschwerlich. Nach unserer Testperiode mit Gleitschraubenosteosynthesen haben wir folgende Entscheidungen getroffen: ± Die Gleitschrauben wurden aufgrund ihrer einfachen Verwendbarkeit und der vergleichbaren Komplikationsrate als Standardosteosynthese beibehalten. ± Beim biologisch über 70 Jahre alten Patienten mit Garden-III/ IV-bzw. Pauwels-III-Frakturen sind wir wieder vollständig zur unipolaren Kopfprothese zurückgekehrt.
AbstractIn a 3-year period from 1995 ± 1998 femoral neck fractures were treated according to scandinavian studys with gliding screws (35 ) at the Kantonsspital Liestal regardless of age and fracturetype. In this study three screw fixation methods were compared to each other and to a hemiarthroplasty group in the same period. The patients operated with gliding screws were 17 years older than those with other osteosynthesis methods, the complication rate was comparable (non-union 9%, head necrosis 20%). The hemiarthroplasty group was 9 years older with a reoperation rate of 12% comparing to 54% in the gliding screw group. The complication rate of screw osteosynthesis is mostly according to the fracture type. The follow up controls after screw fixation are fatiguing for elderly patients. The gliding screw fixation is the treatment of choice for undislocated fractures (Garden I/II) regardless the age. For dislocated fractures (Garden III/IV) we recommend unipolar cemented hemiarthroplasty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.