Open fractures of the diaphysis of the lower extremity in children. Treatment, results, and complications.

1992 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
K E Cramer ◽  
T J Limbird ◽  
N E Green
2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


1992 ◽  
Vol 85 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 3S-73
Author(s):  
Michael McNamara ◽  
James Heckman ◽  
Fred Corley

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (02) ◽  
pp. 121-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Moullot ◽  
André M. Gay ◽  
Baptiste Bertrand ◽  
Régis Legré ◽  
Nathalie Kerfant ◽  
...  

Background When microsurgical transfers are required in posttraumatic lower limb reconstruction, surgeons must choose among many types of free flaps. Historically, surgeons have advocated muscular flaps for coverage of open lower extremity wounds, but fasciocutaneous free flaps are now often used with good results. This study aimed to compare the functional and aesthetic outcome of reconstruction by free muscular latissimus dorsi (LD) flap and free fasciocutaneous anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap used for soft tissue coverage of distal lower extremity open fractures. Methods We performed a single-center, retrospective study of subjects with distal lower limb open fractures treated with LD flaps or ALT flaps between 2008 and 2014. Patients with limited follow-up or incomplete data were excluded from the analysis. Donor and recipient sites, early complications and long-term outcomes (functional and aesthetic) were studied and compared according to the type of flap. Results A total of 47 patients were included: 27 patients in the LD flap group and 20 patients in the ALT flap group. No significant difference was found regarding early and late complications and long-term functional outcomes (bone healing, infectious bone complications, flap healing). As for aesthetic outcome and donor-site morbidity, reconstruction using the ALT free flap had significantly better results (p < 0.05). Conclusions In posttraumatic lower limb injury, either LD or ALT free flaps can be used for wound coverage with comparable long-term functional outcomes. The ALT flap provides better cosmetic results than LD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document