2015
DOI: 10.1097/bot.0000000000000311
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamizations and Exchanges

Abstract: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Confounders like gender, BMI, and hypertension had insignificant effect on efficacy of dynamization with p-values 0.760, 0.070, and 0.204 respectively. Similar findings have been reported by Litrenta 19 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Confounders like gender, BMI, and hypertension had insignificant effect on efficacy of dynamization with p-values 0.760, 0.070, and 0.204 respectively. Similar findings have been reported by Litrenta 19 .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…This process has a number of benefits like increased contact area at the fracture site, better osteogenesis, and enhanced transmission of forces around weight-bearing areas. All this result in faster and better fracture healing [10][11][12][13][14] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Open bone grafting with plating has yielded high rates of union [8, 9], but plating is an extensive surgical intervention. Exchange intramedullary (IM) nailing has been the mainstay of treatment for diaphyseal nonunion in the femur and tibia with success rates ranging from 53 to 100% [10, 11] and 72 to 92% [12], respectively. Part of the range in union outcomes may be due to poor bone contact at the nonunion docking site [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Exchange intramedullary (IM) nailing has been the mainstay of treatment for diaphyseal nonunion in the femur and tibia with success rates ranging from 53 to 100% [10, 11] and 72 to 92% [12], respectively. Part of the range in union outcomes may be due to poor bone contact at the nonunion docking site [12]. The value of compression in the biomechanics of osteogenesis has been long recognized [13, 14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…48,49 Micromotion at the fracture site by flexible fixation, dynamization, or weight bearing is effective in stimulating fracture healing even in patients who are smokers and those with diabetes. 48,50,51 Fundamentally, mechanical loading enhances bone formation even in diabetics and smokers and thus optimal load-sharing has the potential to improve fusion outcomes for difficult to treat populations. 5254…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%