Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Acta Orthop ; 85(3): 293-8, 2014 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24758320

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The PRECICE intramedullary limb lengthening system uses a new technique with a magnetic rod and a motorized external remote controller (ERC) with rotational magnetic field. We evaluated the reliability and safety of the PRECICE system. METHODS: We compared our preliminary results with PRECICE in 24 patients (26 nails) with the known difficulties in the use of mechanical lengthening devices such as the ISKD. We used the Paley classification for evaluation of problems, obstacles, and complications. RESULTS: 2 nails were primarily without function, and 24/26 nails lengthened over the desired distance. Lengthening desired was 38 mm and lengthening obtained was 37 mm. There were 2 nail breakages, 1 in the welding seam and 1 because of a fall that occurred during consolidation. ERC usage was problematic mostly in patients with femoral lengthening. Adjustment of the ERC was necessary in 10 of 24 cases. 15 cases had implant-associated problems, obstacles were seen in 5 cases, and complications were seen in each of 4 cases. INTERPRETAION: The reliability of the PRECICE system is comparable to that of other intramedullary lengthening devices such as the ISKD. The motorized external remote controller and its application by the patients is a weak point of the system and needs strict supervision.


Subject(s)
Bone Lengthening/instrumentation , Bone Lengthening/methods , Femur/surgery , Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary/instrumentation , Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary/methods , Tibia/surgery , Adolescent , Adult , Bone Nails , Child , Equipment Failure , Equipment and Supplies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Magnetics , Male , Patient Safety , Reproducibility of Results , Young Adult
2.
J Pediatr Orthop ; 34(6): e33-8, 2014 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24590329

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The quality of the abstracts presented at a conference reflects the scientific work and level of activity of the scientific association concerned. The aim of the present study was to determine the rate of publications of podium presentations and posters at the conferences of the European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society (EPOS) from 2006 to 2008 and to identify factors that favor publication in peer-reviewed journals. The results are compared with those of other international societies. METHODS: All 646 abstracts (including podiums, posters, and e-posters) presented at the EPOS conferences were investigated using the PubMed database to identify any corresponding published articles in the journals listed in the database. A period of 5 years before and after the relevant conference was used for the PubMed search. Factors influencing publication and the quality of the study, such as the type of presentation and the level of evidence, were also investigated. RESULTS: A publication rate of 36.7% was observed, corresponding to 237 publications of 646 abstracts. The period to publication showed a mean of 13.88 ± 1.34 months. It was found that abstracts of podium presentations were published significantly more often than poster abstracts (P<0.001). Experimental studies, with a publication rate of 50.9%, showed better results than clinical studies (36.0%). Overall, the articles were published in 61 different journals, with the largest number (n=50) appearing in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. In addition, the present study shows that abstracts with a higher level of evidence were associated with a higher publication rate. CONCLUSIONS: At 36.7%, the rate of publication of EPOS abstracts is within the range reached by other specialist orthopaedics societies, such as the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (36%) and the British Orthopaedic Association (36%). However, it is lower than the publication rate of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA), at 50%. The high percentage of unpublished conference abstracts (63%), which did not go through a peer-reviewed process, casts doubts upon the practice of utilizing the citation of abstracts based purely on conference abstracts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Statistical study.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Orthopedics/statistics & numerical data , Pediatrics/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Abstracting and Indexing , Congresses as Topic , Europe , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Societies, Medical
3.
Clin Orthop Relat Res ; 467(4): 1023-7, 2009 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19030942

ABSTRACT

UNLABELLED: Limb-lengthening procedures include a series of radiographic examinations to follow the lengthening process and callus formation. We quantified ionizing radiation exposure during lengthening treatment and estimated the risks associated with this exposure in 53 patients undergoing lengthening procedures. Field size and tube voltage of all radiographs and fluoroscopy time during surgery were recorded. According to conversion factor tables of organ doses, the cumulative organ dose was estimated. Location of lengthening, age, complications during lengthening procedure, range of lengthening, healing index, and other factors affecting the duration of the lengthening procedures were analyzed. Average lengthening was 4.8 cm (range, 3.0-12.5 cm). The average cumulative organ dose for a straight lengthening procedure was 3.1 mSv (range, 0.2-12.5 mSv). The average organ dose per centimeter of lengthening was 0.7 mSv/cm (range, 0.03-5.9 mSv/cm). Doses for patients with tibial lengthening (0.3 mSv/cm) were less than doses for patients with femoral lengthening (1.1 mSv/cm). Age, complications, range of lengthening, and healing index did not influence the dosage of radiation per centimeter lengthening. We judge the average patient's exposure during a limb-lengthening procedure as tolerable, but femur lengthening results in a higher cumulative organ dose. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Subject(s)
Ilizarov Technique , Radiation Injuries/etiology , Radiography, Interventional/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Femur/diagnostic imaging , Femur/surgery , Humans , Male , Monitoring, Intraoperative , Osteotomy , Radiation Dosage , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Tibia/diagnostic imaging , Tibia/surgery , Time Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...