ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the clinical effect of electromagnetic navigation system to locate the distal locking screw of tibia intramedullary nail. Methods From February 2010 to December 2016, 79 cases of tibia shaft fractures requiring treatment with intramedullary nailing were selected and divided into the navigation group and free hand locking group according to intramedullary nail locking methods. Forty-four cases in navigation group used an electromagnetic navigation system to lock the distal end of the intramedullary nail,while 35 cases in free hand locking group used a free-hand technique. The intraoperative X-ray exposure time,distal locking time,healing time, and the success rate of one-time distal locking were recorded compared between two groups. Results The average time of diatal locking using electromagnetic navigation technology was less than that of the free hand locking group,and the exposure time of fluoroscopy was also reduced, the differences were significant(P ＜ 0. 05). There was no difference in fracture healing time between the two groups(P ＞ 0. 05), one-time success rate of navigation group was 100％,which was higher than 37. 34％ of the free hand locking group, the difference was significant(P ＜ 0. 05). Conclusion Compared with free hand technology, the advantage of using electromagnetic navigation system to lock the distal nail of tibia intramedullary nail is high efficiency, short locking time and no radiation.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We compared and analyzed the short term results of high flexion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with mobile-bearing and fixed bearing designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 32 patients that had undergone TKA with LPS-Flex Mobile and 34 patients with LPS-Flex Fixed using an electromagnetic navigation system between January 2010 and June 2010, and were followed up for at least 1 year. RESULTS: Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS) and Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS) of the mobile-bearing group were 94.5 and 93.8 points, respectively, and were 48.2 and 45.3 points preoperatively, whereas those of the fixed-bearing group were 95.1 and 94.2 points, respectively, and were 49.5 and 46.9 points preoperatively. Postoperative mechanical axis deviation and implant position of the femoral and tibial component both on the coronal and sigittal planes showed no significant differences between the two groups. Range of motion (ROM) and maximal flexion angle (MFA) of the knee joint also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The possibility of crossed-legged sitting and kneeling position also showed no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiologic parameters, ROM and MFA of knee joints showed no significant differences in both the groups, but long term follow-up results may be necessary, including survival rate.