ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the use of the electromagnetic distal targeting system in treating humeral shaft fracture. METHODS: Patients were divided in: Group 1) patients that received a distal locking screw placement following the free-hand technique; Group 2) patients in which the distal locking screw was performed using the SURESHOT device. RESULTS: No differences were noted comparing Group 1 (freehand) [71,9 range 40-135â¯min] to Group 2 (SURESHOT)[70, range 25-125â¯min]. CONCLUSION: The use of the EM distal targeting system doesn't reduce the overall operative time of the humeral shaft fracture fixation using IMN.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic hardware represents the most frequent complication reported following surgical treatment of patellar fracture. For this reason, some authors suggested using nonabsorbable sutures to fix the fracture with various techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiological results of patients treated following a modified Pyriford technique using a FiberWire suture (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a case series of seventeen patients with displaced patellar fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation with a modified tension band using FiberWire sutures. Clinical and radiological outcome were evaluated. Union time, complications, and reoperation rate were observed and recorded. RESULTS: All fractures healed (time to union 9.2 ± 2 weeks), and no fixation failure was observed. Slight losses of reduction (<4 mm) were noted in two patients at 4 weeks postoperatively. The average Lysholm and Bostman scores at the final follow-up were 91 ± 5.7 (range 83-100) and 28.3 ± 1.6 (range 26-30), respectively. CONCLUSION: Modified tension band using FiberWire sutures showed satisfactory clinical results, with a low incidence of complications and reoperations. FiberWire tension bands could be used in place of metal-wire tension bands to treat patellar fracture, reducing the rate of symptomatic hardware. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
