Soft Tissue Management of Elbow Deformities

Author(s):  
Takeshi Ogawa ◽  
Kevin C. Chung
Orthopedics ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Clemens ◽  
Rolf Klaus Miehlke

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Rao ◽  
MV Schaverien ◽  
KJ Stewart

INTRODUCTION The management of open tibial fractures in children represents a unique reconstructive challenge. The aim of the study was to evaluate the management of paediatric open tibial fractures with particular regard to soft tissue management. PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective case-note analysis was performed for all children presenting with an open tibial fracture at a single institution over a 20-year period for 1985 to 2005. RESULTS Seventy children were reviewed of whom 41 were males and 29 females. Overall, 91% (n = 64) of children suffered their injury as a result of a vehicle-related injury. The severity of the fracture with respect to the Gustilo classification was: Grade I, 42% (n = 29); Grade II, 24% (n = 17); Grade III, 34% (n = 24; 7 Grade 3a, 16 Grade 3b, 1 Grade 3c). The majority of children were treated with external fixation and conservative measures, with a mean hospital in-patient stay of 13.3 days. Soft tissue cover was provided by plastic surgeons in 31% of all cases. Four cases of superficial wound infection occurred (6%), one case of osteomyelitis and one case of flap failure. The limb salvage was greater than 98%. CONCLUSIONS In this series, complications were associated with delayed involvement of plastic surgeons. Retrospective analysis has shown a decreased incidence of open tibial fractures which is reported in similar studies. Gustilo grade was found to correlate with length of hospital admission and plastic surgery intervention. We advocate, when feasible, the use of local fas-ciocutaneous flaps (such as distally based fasciocutaneous and adipofascial flaps), which showed a low complication rate in children.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 399-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J Jordan ◽  
Marco Malahias ◽  
Wasim Khan ◽  
Sandip Hindocha

Fractures with associated soft tissue injuries, or those termed ‘open,’ are not uncommon. There has been much discussion regarding there management, with the guidance from the combined British Orthopaedic Association and British Association and Aesthetic Surgeons teams widely accepted as the gold level of therapy. We aim to discuss the current evidence about the initial management of this group of injuries, taking a journey from arrival in the accident and emergency department through to the point of definitive closure. Other modes of therapy are also reviewed.


2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S32-S38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Sirkin ◽  
Roy Sanders ◽  
Thomas DiPasquale ◽  
Dolfi Herscovici

2016 ◽  
Vol In Press (In Press) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Sobouti ◽  
Fatemeh Namvar ◽  
Sepideh Dadgar

Author(s):  
Aleksandr Lysov ◽  
Andre Saadoun

The long-term Functional success of the implant treatment depends on the stability of the crestal bone tissue around the implant platform. The Esthetic result is achieved by an adequate soft tissue in the peri-implant zone. Furthermore, the soft tissue creates the buffer area that ensures the mechanical and biological protection of the underlying bone. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain for a long term, not only the implant osseointegration but also the integration of the soft tissue around the Sub and Supra-structure of the restoration. In order to create the protective soft tissue area, it is necessary to ensure three criteria. This treatment approach will be defined as the TWS – Soft Tissue Management : T for Thickness , W for Width, and S for Stability . The purpose of this article is to present with clinical cases, the detailed description of each criteria. There are many ways to achieve the two first criteria and they are well described in the literature. Achieving the third criteria of the Stability become possible only in the last years since the development of the digital technology and its implementation into the dental practice. A one time abutment and the creation of peri- implant mucosal thickness with an optimal amount of the attached keratinized gingiva above and around the implant platform, for muco-gingival integration of the system, are therefore a prerequisite for functional and esthetic result. The article presents the possibility for the clinicians to use in their daily practice this new clinical approach of TWS - Soft Tissue Management.


2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheol-Hyun Moon ◽  
Dong-Gun Lee ◽  
Hyun-Sun Lee ◽  
Jeong-Soo Im ◽  
Seung-Hak Baek

Abstract Objective: To determine the success rate and the factors related to the success rate of orthodontic miniscrew implants (OMI) placed at the attached gingiva of the posterior buccal region. Materials and Methods: Four hundred eighty OMI placed in 209 orthodontic patients were examined retroactively. The sample was divided into young patients (range 10–18 years, N = 108) and adult patients (range 19–64 years, N = 109). The placement site was divided into three interdental areas from the first premolar to the second molar in the maxilla and mandible. According to soft tissue management, the samples were divided into incision and nonincision groups. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression analyses were used. Results: The overall success rate was 83.8%. Dislodgement of the OMI occurred most frequently in the first 1–2 months, and more than 90% of the failures occurred within the first 4 months. Sex, age, jaw, soft tissue management, and placement side did not show any difference in the success rate. Placement site, however, showed a significant difference in the mandible of adult patients. There was no difference in the success rate in the maxilla. Conclusions: Placement site is one of the important factors for success rate of OMI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document