Escarpanter BJC

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 33-43
PDF size: 133.49 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: humerous fracture has always been difficult to treat both by bloodless form or surgery due to the anatomy of the region that makes its surgical access and an effective immobilization difficult.
Objective: to present the advantages of the mono-lateral external fixation, to show and spread the results and encourage its use.
Methods: 41 clinical records were studied and required data were collected, placing them in tables using a determined pattern. The results were divided into good, regular and bad.
Results: in 9 open fractures and 9 of the 32 closed ones, there was an emergency treatment and the rest underwent deferred treatments. Among the problems, the one that predominated was the infection in the wire insertion site (58 %) As complications, a patient presented infected pseudoarthrosis, there were three malunions, two patients had radial paralysis (one by nervous lesion and the other due to neuropraxia caused by manipulation of the nerve) and a patient presented intolerance to the equipment. The treatment concluded with the initial behaviour in the 91.6 % of the cases and an average healing time of 13.2 weeks. The application of the mentioned pattern showed that the 75.6 % of patients had good results, the 12.2 % had regular results and the 12.2 % had results that were classified as bad.
Conclusion: this therapy is very useful in the treatment of humerous factures and we can ascertain that its advantages far outweigh the disadvantages that can occur.

REFERENCES

1. Lambotte A. Sur l'ostéosynthese. Belg Méd. 1908;6:231.

2. Gustilo R, Anderson J. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty five open fractures of long bones. Retrospective analysis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1976;58:453.

3. Fixator externo monopolar. Catálogo da BRUMED. São Paulo: BRUMED; 1998.

4. Fijador modular ultraliviano (F.I.M.U.). Monografía. Mar del Plata: Técnicos Asociados S.R.L. Mitre; 1999. p. 1-2.

5. Álvarez Cambras R, Ceballos Mesa A, Murgadas Rodríguez R. Tratado de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatológica. t. 1. La Habana: Ed. Pueblo y Educación; 1985. p. 564.

6. Checketts RG, Otterbum M, MacEachem G. Pin track infection: definition, incidence and prevention. Supl Int J Orthop Trauma. 1993;33(3):16.

7. Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus: an epidemiological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2006;88:1469.

8. Canale and Beaty. Fractures of the humeral shaft. In: Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics. 11 ed. Chapter 54, Fractures of the Shoulder, Arm and the Forearm. Elsevier España: Mosby Publishing; 2007.

9. Shved S. Distinctive features of transosseous osteosynthesis in treatement of patients with humerus fractures. Papers Book. Compiled by the Scientific Committee. World Congress on External Fixation. Lima, Perú; 2005. p. 24.

10. Malfatti M. Uso de los tutores externos en fracturas de húmero. Papers Book. Compiled by the Scientific Committee. World Congress on External Fixation. Lima, Perú; 2005. p. 32.

11. Escarpanter Buliés JC. Sepsis del trayecto de los alambres de transfixión en fijación externa ósea. Rev Cubana Ortop Traumatol. 2003;17(1-2):79.

12. Paley D, Kovelmam HF, Herzenberg JE. Ilizárov technology. Advances in operative orthopedics. New YorK: Mosby-Year Book Inc.; 1993. p. 1-243.

13. Pareja CA. Papers Book. Compiled by the Scientific Committee. World Congress on External Fixation. Lima, Perú; 2005. p. 49.