medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Hospital Angeles Health System

2017, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta Med 2017; 15 (4)

Frequency and types of fractures classified by the AO system at Hospital General de León for one year

Domínguez GLG, Orozco VSL

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 275-286
PDF size: 266.33 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Fractures are a public health problem. Objective: To know the frequency of fractures handled surgically in the institution, their distribution and type according to the AO for one year. Material and methods: All adults’ fractures requiring surgical management were classified according to the AO based on a clinical and radiological study. Results: A total of 1,127 fractures were registered in a sample with age X and SD of 42.9 years ± 24.3, with monthly distribution X and SD of 93.91 ± 18.92. March showed the highest percentage, 11.2% (n = 127). The most frequently fractured bones were femur, 24.5% (n = 276), and radius/ulna, 24.4% (n = 275). The male gender presented 722 fractures (64.1%), the most frequently fractured bones were radius and ulna, with 28.1% (n = 203). The female gender, 405 fractures (35.9%); femur fracture was the most common, with 33.3% (n = 135). There were no statistically significant differences between genders in fractures of femur, patella and ankle; the rest of fractures were two to three times more frequent in the male gender (p ‹ 0.05). Conclusions: Knowing which fracture types are most frequent will allow the institution to have the osteosynthesis material necessary for their resolution.


REFERENCES

  1. Aitken SA, Rodrigues MA, Duckworth AD, Clement ND, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. Determining the incidence of adult fractures: how accurate are emergency department data? Epidemiology Research International. 2012; doi. org/10.1155/2012/837928.

  2. Híjar MM. Los accidentes como problema de salud pública en México. Academia Nacional de Medicina. Ciudad de México: Intersistemas SA; 2014. pp. 1-17.

  3. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006; 37: 691-697.

  4. Donaldson LJ, Cook A, Thomson RG. Incidence of fractures in a geographically defined population. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1990; 44: 241-245.

  5. Johansson H, Clark P, Carlos F, Oden AC, McCloskey EV, Kanis JA. Increasing age- and sex-specific rates of hip fracture in Mexico: a survey of the Mexican Institute of Social Security. Osteoporosis Int. 2011; 22: 2359-2364.

  6. Clark P, Lavielle P, Franco-Marina F, Ramírez E, Salmeron J, Kanis JA et al. Incidence rates and life-time risk of hip fractures in Mexicans over 50 years of age: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int. 2005; 16: 2025-2030.

  7. Clark P, Carlos F, Barrera C, Guzman J, Maetzel A, Lavielle P et al. Direct costs of osteoporosis and hip fracture: an analysis for the Mexican healthcare system. Osteoporos Int. 2008; 19: 269-276.

  8. International Osteoporosis Foundation. México. Available in: https://www.iofbonehealth.org/ /2012-Latin_America_Audit-Mexico-ES_0_0.pdf.

  9. Díez GM, Macías HS, Ramírez PE, Chávez AD, Soria BM, Granados RR et al. Características epidemiológicas de pacientes adultos atendidos por fracturas en el Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación. Investigación en Discapacidad. 2013; 2: 51-54.

  10. Meneses F, Rea R, Ruiz C, Hernández M. Accidentes y lesiones en cuatro hospitales generales del Distrito Federal. Salud Publica Mex. 1993; 35: 448-455.

  11. Lovato-Salas F, Luna-Pizarro D, Oliva-Ramírez SA, Flores-Lujano J, Núñez-Enríquez JC. Prevalencia de fracturas de cadera, fémur y rodilla en la Unidad Médica de Alta Especialidad Hospital de Traumatología y Ortopedia «Lomas Verdes» del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Acta Ortopédica Mexicana 2015; 29 (1): 13-20.

  12. Manual AO Foundation (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen). Available in: https://www.aofoundation.org/Structure/network

  13. Larsson D, Ekstrand J, Karlsson MK. Fracture epidemiology in male elite football players from 2001 to 2013: “How long will this fracture keep me out?” Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50: 759-763.

  14. Cho CH, Oh JH, Jung GH, Moon GH, Rhyou IH, Yoon JP et al. The interrater and intrarater agreement of a modified neer classification system and associated treatment choice for lateral clavicle fractures. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 2431-2436.

  15. Bhandari M, Zelle BA, Kregor PJ, Cole PA. Treatment of scapula fractures: systematic review of 520 fractures in 22 case series. J Orthop Trauma. 2006; 20: 230-233.

  16. Baldwin KD, Ohman-Strickland P, Mehta S, Hume E. Scapula fractures: a marker for concomitant injury? A retrospective review of data in the National Trauma Database. J Trauma. 2008; 65: 430-435.

  17. Audigé L, Kellam JF, Lambert S, Madsen JE, Babst R, Andermahr J et al. The AO Foundation and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) scapula fracture classification system: focus on body involvement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23: 189-196.

  18. Bergdahl C, Ekholm C, Wennergren D, Nilsson F, Möller M. Epidemiology and patho-anatomical pattern of 2,011 humeral fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17: 159-168.

  19. Driessen MJ, Hansen L, Eriksen AS, van Onzenoort WH et al. The epidemiology of fractures in Denmark in 2011. Osteoporos Int. 2016; 27: 2017-2025.

  20. Abrahamsen B, Vestergaard P. Declining incidence of hip fractures and the extent of use of anti-osteoporotic therapy in Denmark 1997-2006. Osteoporos Int. 2010; 21 (3): 373-380.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com