Evaluation of factors affecting the occurrence of second atypical fracture after bone union of the first atypical fracture

Bone ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 143 ◽  
pp. 115671
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Tsuchie ◽  
Naohisa Miyakoshi ◽  
Yuji Kasukawa ◽  
Koji Nozaka ◽  
Kimio Saito ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kensaku Abe ◽  
Hiroaki Kimura ◽  
Norio Yamamoto ◽  
Shingo Shimozaki ◽  
Takashi Higuchi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Atypical fractures may occur due to the combined effect of severely suppressed bone turnover (SSBT) caused by long-term bisphosphonate treatment and chronic repetitive bone microdamage. Atypical fracture of the ulna due to SSBT is a rare entity; there is no standardized treatment strategy for this condition. We successfully treated a patient with atypical fracture of the ulna. Herein, we present this patient, review the relevant literature, and discuss the treatment strategy. Case presentation An 84-year-old woman presented with atypical fracture of the left ulnar shaft due to SSBT. She had a history of bisphosphonate therapy (ibandronate and alendronate) since more than 10 years; her bone turnover was severely suppressed. We performed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using dual plate with some additional treatments. These included drilling and decortication, use of autogenous bone graft, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) treatment, and administration of teriparatide. Finally, bone union was observed at 11 months after surgery. Conclusions Based on the literature review and our experience with this case, ORIF alone may not be adequate to achieve bone union; drilling, decortication, and use of cancellus bone graft is important to achieve favorable outcomes. Administration of teriparatide and LIPUS may facilitate early bone union, although further studies are required to provide more definitive evidence. Furthermore, ORIF using dual plate may help avoid implant failure owing to the long time required for bone union.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 502-508
Author(s):  
Taro Kasai ◽  
Takeomi Nakamura ◽  
Mitsuyasu Iwasawa ◽  
Yuichi Nagase ◽  
Takuo Juji ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 1279-1286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Hoshino ◽  
Hiroaki Nakamura ◽  
Hidetomi Terai ◽  
Tadao Tsujio ◽  
Masaharu Nabeta ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. S526-S529
Author(s):  
Ryosuke Kawai ◽  
Itaru Kawashima ◽  
Akitoshi Maeda ◽  
Makoto Tsukada ◽  
Hideyuki Aoshiba ◽  
...  

1992 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 895-900
Author(s):  
Michiya Hara ◽  
Naoto Takagishi ◽  
Takashi Watanabe

Author(s):  
F. A. Heckman ◽  
E. Redman ◽  
J.E. Connolly

In our initial publication on this subject1) we reported results demonstrating that contrast is the most important factor in producing the high image quality required for reliable image analysis. We also listed the factors which enhance contrast in order of the experimentally determined magnitude of their effect. The two most powerful factors affecting image contrast attainable with sheet film are beam intensity and KV. At that time we had only qualitative evidence for the ranking of enhancing factors. Later we carried out the densitometric measurements which led to the results outlined below.Meaningful evaluations of the cause-effect relationships among the considerable number of variables in preparing EM negatives depend on doing things in a systematic way, varying only one parameter at a time. Unless otherwise noted, we adhered to the following procedure evolved during our comprehensive study:Philips EM-300; 30μ objective aperature; magnification 7000- 12000X, exposure time 1 second, anti-contamination device operating.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document