Kullanım Kılavuzu
Neden sadece 3 sonuç görüntüleyebiliyorum?
Sadece üye olan kurumların ağından bağlandığınız da tüm sonuçları görüntüleyebilirsiniz. Üye olmayan kurumlar için kurum yetkililerinin başvurması durumunda 1 aylık ücretsiz deneme sürümü açmaktayız.
Benim olmayan çok sonuç geliyor?
Birçok kaynakça da atıflar "Soyad, İ" olarak gösterildiği için özellikle Soyad ve isminin baş harfi aynı olan akademisyenlerin atıfları zaman zaman karışabilmektedir. Bu sorun tüm dünyadaki atıf dizinlerinin sıkça karşılaştığı bir sorundur.
Sadece ilgili makaleme yapılan atıfları nasıl görebilirim?
Makalenizin ismini arattıktan sonra detaylar kısmına bastığınız anda seçtiğiniz makaleye yapılan atıfları görebilirsiniz.
 Görüntüleme 23
 İndirme 3
Comparison of PFN versus PFNA nail in treatment of pertrocanteric femur fractures
2013
Dergi:  
Medeniyet Medical Journal
Yazar:  
Özet:

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study is to comparison of radiological and clinic results of second generation PFN and third generation PFNA nails in pertrocanteric femur fractures. METHODS: The study was done between December 2006 and December 2012. 182 pertrocanteric femur fractures were included to the study. 50 PFN and 46 PFNA nails minimum one year followed-up were included, there were total 94 patients (69 female and 25 male). Mean age was 76.3 (26-94), mean follow-up was 22.4 (12-72) month. Operation time, fluoroscopy time, mobilization time, the time of full weight bearing, fracture healing, Harris Hip score after the first year, the shortening of proximal femur at the end of one year, per-or postoperative complications were all compared between groups. RESULTS: Here are the results of PFN and PFNA respectively: mean operation time: 73.4 and 72.1 minutes; mean fluoroscopy time: 63.7 and 64.5 seconds; mean mobilization time: 2.5 and 2.2 days; mean full weight bearing time: 9 and 8.5 weeks; mean healing of fracture: 10.1 and 10.2 weeks; mean Harris Hip Score: 81.5 and 80.5; number of subjects shortening of proximal femur at the end of the first year: 14 and 12; mean shortening: 3.3 and 3.1mm. In PFN group there were one iatrogenic distal femur fracture, 2 groin pain, one hematoma, 4 implant irritation and one Z-effect and cut-out. The implant was extracted in cut-out case and the others were treated conservatively. In PFNA group, there were one iatrogenic distal femur fracture, one lateral cortex fracture, one groin pain, 2 hematoma, 3 implat irritation. İmplants were extracted in two implant irritations and others were treated conservatively. There were no deep infections and nonunion. All fractures healed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: According to us, in pertrocanteric femur fractures PFN and PFNA nails treatments are successful and effective. The Z effect known as PFN’s disadvantage was seen only in one case. In trochanteric femur fractures, the implant selection, implantation and surgical techniques are important for a successful results.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Atıf Yapanlar
Bilgi: Bu yayına herhangi bir atıf yapılmamıştır.
Benzer Makaleler










Medeniyet Medical Journal

Alan :   Sağlık Bilimleri

Dergi Türü :   Ulusal

Metrikler
Makale : 1.277
Atıf : 181
2023 Impact/Etki : 0.122
Medeniyet Medical Journal