Ali Akbar Esmailijah, MD; Mohammad Ali Okhovatpour, MD; Keyghobad Ashoori, MD; Reza Zandi, MD; Alireza Amani, MD; Farshad Safdari, MSc
Abstract
Background: There are several techniques for treatment of humeral shaft fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of fixation of humeral shaft fracture with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis.Methods: Ten patients (7 males, 3 females) with traumatic humeral shaft fracture ...
Read More
Background: There are several techniques for treatment of humeral shaft fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of fixation of humeral shaft fracture with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis.Methods: Ten patients (7 males, 3 females) with traumatic humeral shaft fracture were included in this prospective study. The meas age of patients was 31.7±9.8 (16-51) years. According to OTA classiciation, there were one case of A1, two cases of A2, three cases of A3, three cases of B2, and one case of C2 type. The mean distance measured from the fracture site to elbow joint was 7.7±3.11 (4.5-13) cm. Two patients had radial nerve contusion. All fractures were treated in a minimally invasive way. The function of elbow and shoulder were assessed by MEPS and UCLA scores. The mean time of follow-up was 9 months.Results: The mean maximal final angulation was 7.7±3.2°. The final rotational alignment was within normal limits, with no shortening in all cases. One patient needed second surgery and bone grafting because of delayed :::union:::. The mean UCLA score was 34.2±1.2 and the mean MCPS score was 97±6.3. There was no postoperative radial nerve injury. The 2 cases of radial nerve contusion recovered 4 and 4.5 months postoperatively. Conclusion: MIPO is a safe method in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture with a minimum lesion to soft tissue with a high :::union::: rate. It is suggested that minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis be considered in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.
Seyyed Morteza Kazemi, MD; Reza Minaei, MD; Mohammad Ali Okhovatpoor, MD; Ramin Farhang Zanganeh, MD; Mohammad Reza Bigdeli, MD; Seyed Reza Aghapour, MD
Abstract
Background: The role of a mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty is still not clear. This study was designed to compare the mobile and fixed-bearing prosthesis.Methods: In 30 knees a fixed-bearing and in 38 knees a mobile-bearing prosthesis was used. The results were compared using the "Knee Society Scoring ...
Read More
Background: The role of a mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty is still not clear. This study was designed to compare the mobile and fixed-bearing prosthesis.Methods: In 30 knees a fixed-bearing and in 38 knees a mobile-bearing prosthesis was used. The results were compared using the "Knee Society Scoring System".Results: The mobile-bearing group of patients had an average age of 65 and 34 months average follow-up. The fixed-bearing group had an average age of 69 years and a mean follow-up of 30 months. The average knee score, functional score and overall score in the mobile-bearing group rose from 29, 45, 73 to 64, 67, 128 and in the fixed-bearing group from 31.7, 34, 65.9 to 68, 57, 125 prospectively. The difference between two groups was not significant statistically.Conclusion: Although in both groups the average knee scores increased after the operation, there were, however, no significant difference between knee scores in the two types in short-term, and no preference between two types of prosthesis.
