Treatment of Diaphyseal Fractures of Forearm Both Bones: Comparison between Plate Fixation and Rush Pin Intramedullary Nailing

Yoo, Moon Jib; Jung, Hong-Geun; Park, Hee Gon; Byun, Woo Sup; Chun, Ji Yong; Jeon, Soung Hoo

doi:10.12671/jkfs.2006.19.2.215

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the clinical outcome reported by Kang et al, 17) on comparing between the group treated with compression plates only vs. the group treated with Rush pin in the radius and compression plate in the ulna, the immobilization period, radiologic bone union, and functional results were not significantly different. Likewise, Kim et al 18) described the comparison between plate fixation and Rush pin IM nailing for the treatment of SFBFBs. Seventeen out of 18 patients achieved favorable results with plate fixation only of both forearm bones, 12 out of 14 patients achieved favorable results with Rush pin fixation of the radius and plate fixation of the ulna, 7 out of 11 patients achieved favorable results with plate fixation of the radius and Rush pin fixation of the ulna, and 4 out of 8 patients achieved favorable results with Rush pin fixation only.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaft Fractures of Both Forearm Bones: The Outcomes of Surgical Treatment with Plating Only and Combined Plating and Intramedullary Nailing

Kim

Heo

et al. 2015

Clin Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPlate fixation is the most commonly used technique for the treatment of shaft fractures of both forearm bones (SFBFBs). However, all fractures are difficult to treat with plate fixation because of soft tissue injuries, fracture patterns, or the patient's condition. The purpose of this study is to compare the functional results of plate fixation only and combined plate and intramedullary (IM) nail fixation in SFBFBs.MethodsFifty-nine cases of SFBFBs that were surgically treated from June 2007 to July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. In this study, 47 cases that were followed up for more than 12 months were included. All SFBFBs were divided into two groups according to the methods used for internal fixation: plate fixation only (group A) and combined plate and IM nail fixation (group B). The fixation methods were determined intraoperatively. Plate fixation was considered as the first option in all cases, but combined plate and IM nail fixation was selected as the second option if it was difficult to be fixed with plate only. Groups A and B comprised of 31 and 16 cases, respectively. The functional results were evaluated by the Grace and Eversmann rating system and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire.ResultsIn groups A and B, a radiologic union was achieved in 30/31 and 14/16 cases and average union time was 11.1 and 17.8 weeks, respectively. According to the Grace and Eversmann rating system, group A had excellent results in 15 cases, good in 14, acceptable in one, and unacceptable in one. Group B had excellent results in three cases, good in nine, acceptable in two, and unacceptable in two. The average DASH score was 7.1 points (range, 0 to 19.2 points) in group A and 15.1 points (range, 0 to 29.6 points) in group B. Three cases of nonunion with unacceptable results achieved a bony union by additional procedures and the functional results of these cases improved to good or excellent.Conclusions The functional results and the average union time were superior in group A than in group B. However, we think that combined fixation is a useful method for SFBFBs that cannot be treated with plate fixation only.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%