Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study

OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Mehmet Salih Soylemez [verfasserIn] Tayyar Taylan Oz [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry.

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri - KARE Publishing, 2017, 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:7 ; year:2020 ; number:6 ; pages:609-618

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.14744/nci.2020.08058

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ074380621

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ074380621
003	DE-627
005	20230310175645.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.14744/nci.2020.08058 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ074380621
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a R5-920
100	0		\|a Mehmet Salih Soylemez \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
650		4	\|a femur shaft fracture
650		4	\|a greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry.
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
653		0	\|a Medicine (General)
700	0		\|a Tayyar Taylan Oz \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri \|d KARE Publishing, 2017 \|g 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 \|w (DE-627)1725349930 \|x 25364553 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:7 \|g year:2020 \|g number:6 \|g pages:609-618
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 7 \|j 2020 \|e 6 \|h 609-618

Indexfelder

author_variant	m s s mss t t o tto
matchkey_str	article:25364553:2020----::ossndfeetnrneonsoitaeulrnisfetlnclucmsofmrlhffatrsr
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
callnumber-subject-code	R
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.14744/nci.2020.08058 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074380621 (DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Mehmet Salih Soylemez verfasserin aut Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. Medicine R Medicine (General) Tayyar Taylan Oz verfasserin aut In İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri KARE Publishing, 2017 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 (DE-627)1725349930 25364553 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:6 pages:609-618 https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f kostenfrei https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 6 609-618
spelling	10.14744/nci.2020.08058 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074380621 (DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Mehmet Salih Soylemez verfasserin aut Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. Medicine R Medicine (General) Tayyar Taylan Oz verfasserin aut In İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri KARE Publishing, 2017 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 (DE-627)1725349930 25364553 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:6 pages:609-618 https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f kostenfrei https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 6 609-618
allfields_unstemmed	10.14744/nci.2020.08058 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074380621 (DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Mehmet Salih Soylemez verfasserin aut Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. Medicine R Medicine (General) Tayyar Taylan Oz verfasserin aut In İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri KARE Publishing, 2017 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 (DE-627)1725349930 25364553 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:6 pages:609-618 https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f kostenfrei https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 6 609-618
allfieldsGer	10.14744/nci.2020.08058 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074380621 (DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Mehmet Salih Soylemez verfasserin aut Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. Medicine R Medicine (General) Tayyar Taylan Oz verfasserin aut In İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri KARE Publishing, 2017 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 (DE-627)1725349930 25364553 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:6 pages:609-618 https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f kostenfrei https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 6 609-618
allfieldsSound	10.14744/nci.2020.08058 doi (DE-627)DOAJ074380621 (DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Mehmet Salih Soylemez verfasserin aut Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. Medicine R Medicine (General) Tayyar Taylan Oz verfasserin aut In İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri KARE Publishing, 2017 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 (DE-627)1725349930 25364553 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:6 pages:609-618 https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f kostenfrei https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2020 6 609-618
language	English
source	In İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 volume:7 year:2020 number:6 pages:609-618
sourceStr	In İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri 7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618 volume:7 year:2020 number:6 pages:609-618
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. Medicine R Medicine (General)
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Mehmet Salih Soylemez @@aut@@ Tayyar Taylan Oz @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	1725349930
id	DOAJ074380621
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ074380621</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310175645.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.14744/nci.2020.08058</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ074380621</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mehmet Salih Soylemez</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">femur shaft fracture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tayyar Taylan Oz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri</subfield><subfield code="d">KARE Publishing, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1725349930</subfield><subfield code="x">25364553</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:609-618</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">609-618</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Mehmet Salih Soylemez
spellingShingle	Mehmet Salih Soylemez misc R5-920 misc femur shaft fracture misc greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. misc Medicine misc R misc Medicine (General) Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study
authorStr	Mehmet Salih Soylemez
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)1725349930
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	R5-920
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	25364553
topic_title	R5-920 Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study femur shaft fracture greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry
topic	misc R5-920 misc femur shaft fracture misc greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. misc Medicine misc R misc Medicine (General)
topic_unstemmed	misc R5-920 misc femur shaft fracture misc greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. misc Medicine misc R misc Medicine (General)
topic_browse	misc R5-920 misc femur shaft fracture misc greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry. misc Medicine misc R misc Medicine (General)
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri
hierarchy_parent_id	1725349930
hierarchy_top_title	İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)1725349930
title	Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ074380621 (DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f
title_full	Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study
author_sort	Mehmet Salih Soylemez
journal	İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri
journalStr	İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	609
author_browse	Mehmet Salih Soylemez Tayyar Taylan Oz
container_volume	7
class	R5-920
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Mehmet Salih Soylemez
doi_str_mv	10.14744/nci.2020.08058
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? a retrospective clinical comparative study
callnumber	R5-920
title_auth	Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study
abstract	OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
abstractGer	OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
abstract_unstemmed	OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	6
title_short	Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study
url	https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058 https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058 https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902
remote_bool	true
author2	Tayyar Taylan Oz
author2Str	Tayyar Taylan Oz
ppnlink	1725349930
callnumber-subject	R - General Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.14744/nci.2020.08058
callnumber-a	R5-920
up_date	2024-07-03T22:49:37.331Z
_version_	1803599979301830656
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ074380621</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310175645.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.14744/nci.2020.08058</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ074380621</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mehmet Salih Soylemez</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">OBJECTIVE: We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance. METHODS: The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures. CONCLUSION: Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">femur shaft fracture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">greater trochanter entry; trochanteric fossa entry.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tayyar Taylan Oz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri</subfield><subfield code="d">KARE Publishing, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2020), 6, Seite 609-618</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1725349930</subfield><subfield code="x">25364553</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:609-618</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2020.08058</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/9011b0b836a240d5a4610caf0b89499f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=nci&un=NCI-08058</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4902</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">609-618</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4020615

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?