compression nail
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

23
(FIVE YEARS 3)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2019 ◽  
Vol 139 (11) ◽  
pp. 1551-1560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Austin T. Fragomen ◽  
David Wellman ◽  
S. Robert Rozbruch

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Steele ◽  
Beau J. Kildow ◽  
Daniel J. Cunningham ◽  
Travis J. Dekker ◽  
James K. DeOrio ◽  
...  

Background. Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis is a common treatment option for hindfoot arthritis and deformity. Loss of compression over time with statically locked nails may contribute to nonunion. A novel retrograde intramedullary nail with an internal pseudoelastic component has recently been used to provide sustained dynamic compression (SDC). The purpose of this study was to compare fusion rates and time to union between the SDC and nondynamized (ND) nails. Methods. All patients who underwent TTC arthrodesis with an intramedullary nail at a single institution from 2013 to 2017 and who had at least 1 year of follow-up were included in this study. Baseline patient and operative characteristics were collected and compared between the sustained SDC and ND nail groups. The rate of successful fusion, time to union, and complications were compared between the groups. Results. The SDC cohort had a significantly faster time to union by 3.9 months (P = .049). The SDC cohort had a higher fusion rate (78.0%) compared with the ND nail cohort (75.0%), although this was not statistically significant (P = .75). The SDC nail was used significantly (P < .05) more often in patients with known risk factors for nonunion, including female sex, smoking, revision surgery, prior trauma, and patients requiring 3D cage implants for significant bone loss. There were no differences between the groups in terms of complications. Conclusion. The SDC nail has been shown to achieve successful arthrodesis in a population at high risk for nonunion, using less hardware, and at a faster rate than ND nails. Level of Evidence: Level III: Retrospective, comparative study


2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (2) ◽  
pp. 190-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Chraim ◽  
S. Krenn ◽  
H. M. Alrabai ◽  
H-J. Trnka ◽  
P. Bock

Aims Hindfoot arthrodesis with retrograde intramedullary nailing has been described as a surgical strategy to reconstruct deformities of the ankle and hindfoot in patients with Charcot arthropathy. This study presents case series of Charcot arthropathy patients treated with two different retrograde intramedullary straight compression nails in order to reconstruct the hindfoot and assess the results over a mid-term follow-up. Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 18 consecutive patients and 19 operated feet with Charcot arthropathy who underwent a hindfoot arthrodesis using a retrograde intramedullary compression nail. Patients were ten men and eight women with a mean age of 63.43 years (38.5 to 79.8). We report the rate of limb salvage, complications requiring additional surgery, and fusion rate in both groups. The mean duration of follow-up was 46.36 months (37 to 70). Results The limb salvage rate was 16 of 19 limbs. Three patients had to undergo below-knee amputation due to persistent infection followed by osteomyelitis resistant to parenteral antibiotic therapy and repeated debridement. Complications including infection, hardware removal, nonunion, and persistent ulcers requiring further intervention were also observed. Postoperative functional scores revealed significant improvement compared with preoperative scores on American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) – Hindfoot scale, Foot Function Index (FFI), visual analogue scale (VAS), and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Conclusion The use of retrograde intramedullary compression nail results in good rates of limb salvage when used for hindfoot reconstruction in patients with Charcot arthropathy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:190–6.


2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus Vilà y Rico ◽  
Juan Rodriguez-Martin ◽  
Guillermo Parra-Sanchez ◽  
Carlos Marti Lopez-Amor

2010 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Fenton ◽  
Ford Qureshi ◽  
Nithin Bejjanki ◽  
David Potter

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Mückley ◽  
Gunther Hofmann ◽  
Volker Bühren

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document