PIT15 COMPLICATIONS, HEALTH RESOURCE UTILIZATION AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HARDWARE REMOVAL WITHIN 1-YEAR AFTER OPEN REDUCTION INTERNAL FIXATION OF HUMERUS FRACTURES

Background: Proximal humerus fractures accounts for about 4 to 5% of all fractures. Treatment of unstable, displaced, and comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus remain challenging. Significant controversy continues regarding the best methods of treating displaced proximal humerus fractures. Various operative procedures are carried out, the recent trend in internal fixation has moved on to locking plates. The present study is undertaken to evaluate the functional outcome and complication of proximal humerus fractures treated by locking compression plate.Methods: This is a prospective study comprising of 30 patients with fractures of proximal humerus were treated by open reduction and internal fixation with locking compression plate were evaluated at Velammal Institute Of Medical Sciences, Madurai from the period of April 2015 to December 2016. Clinical and radiological evaluation was done. Patients will undergo open reduction internal fixation with locking compression plate for the sustained fracture under general anesthesia.Results: In our series, the majority of the patients were males, elderly aged, with RTA being the commonest mode of injury, involving 2 part, 3 part and 4 part fractures of the proximal humerus. Excellent and satisfactory results were found in 76.7% of patients with unsatisfactory results in 23.3 % according to Neer’s criteria. There were 100 % union rates and no failures.Conclusions: In conclusion locking Compression, the plate is an advantageous implant in proximal humeral fractures due to angular stability, particularly in comminuted fractures and in Osteoporotic bones in elderly patients, thus allowing early mobilization.

Download Full-text

Open reduction and internal fixationof humeral fracturedistalHumerus fracturedistalopen reduction and internal fixation ofFracturehumerusdistalopen reduction and internal fixation of13 Distal Humerus Fractures—Open Reduction Internal Fixation

Key Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery ◽

10.1055/b-0038-162526 ◽

2018 ◽

Keyword(s):

Internal Fixation ◽

Open Reduction ◽

Distal Humerus ◽

Open Reduction Internal Fixation ◽

Humerus Fractures ◽

Distal Humerus Fractures

Download Full-text

Reoperation Rate Differences Between Open Reduction Internal Fixation and Primary Arthrodesis of Lisfranc Injuries

Foot & Ankle International ◽

10.1177/1071100718774005 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 39 (9) ◽

pp. 1089-1096 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Matteo Buda ◽

Shaun Kink ◽

Ruben Stavenuiter ◽

Catharina Noortje Hagemeijer ◽

Bonnie Chien ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Internal Fixation ◽

Open Reduction ◽

Open Reduction Internal Fixation ◽

Hardware Removal ◽

Patient Risk ◽

Operation Room ◽

Lisfranc Injuries ◽

Reoperation Rates

Background: Controversy persists as to whether Lisfranc injuries are best treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus primary arthrodesis (PA). Reoperation rates certainly influence this debate, but prior studies are often confounded by inclusion of hardware removal as a complication rather than as a planned, staged procedure inherent to ORIF. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether reoperation rates, excluding planned hardware removal, differ between ORIF and PA. A secondary aim was to evaluate patient risk factors associated with reoperation after operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Methods: Between July 1991 and July 2016, adult patients who sustained closed, isolated Lisfranc injuries with or without fractures and who underwent ORIF or PA with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were analyzed. Reoperation rates for reasons other than planned hardware removal were examined, as were patient risk factors predictive of reoperation. Two hundred seventeen patients met enrollment criteria (mean follow-up, 62.5 ± 43.1 months; range, 12-184), of which 163 (75.1%) underwent ORIF and 54 (24.9%) underwent PA. Results: Overall and including planned procedures, patients treated with ORIF had a significantly higher rate of return to the operation room (75.5%) as compared to those in the PA group (31.5%, P < .001). When excluding planned hardware removal, however, there was no difference in reoperation rates between the 2 groups (29.5% in the ORIF group and 29.6% in the PA group, P = 1). Risk factors correlating with unplanned return to the operation room included deep infection ( P = .009-.001), delayed wound healing ( P = .008), and high-energy trauma ( P = .01). Conclusion: When excluding planned removal of hardware, patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with ORIF did not demonstrate a higher rate of reoperation compared with those undergoing PA. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study

Download Full-text