4.6 Article

Objective Guidelines for Removing an External Fixator after Tibial Lengthening Using Pixel Value Ratio: A Pilot Study

期刊

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
卷 467, 期 12, 页码 3321-3326

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1011-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Healthcare Technology RD Project
  2. Ministry for Health
  3. Welfare and Family Affairs
  4. Republic of Korea [A080588]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During limb lengthening over an intramedullary nail, decisions regarding external fixator removal and weightbearing depend on the amount of callus seen at the lengthening area on radiographs. However, this method is subjective and objective evaluation of the amount of callus likely would minimize nail or interlocking screw breakage and refracture after fixator removal. We asked how many cortices with full corticalization of the newly formed bone at the lengthening area are needed to allow fixator removal and full weightbearing and how to radiographically determine the stage of corticalization. We retrospectively reviewed 17 patients (34 lengthenings) who underwent bilateral tibial lengthenings over an intramedullary nail. The average gain in length was 7.2 +/- A 3.4 cm. We determined the pixel value ratio (ratio of pixel value of regenerate versus the mean pixel value of adjacent bone) of the lengthened area on radiographs. There were no nail or screw breakage and refracture. Partial weightbearing with crutches was permitted when the pixel value ratio was 1 in two cortices and full weightbearing without crutches was permitted when the pixel value ratio was 1 in three cortices. The pixel value ratio on radiographs can be an objective parameter for callus measurement and may provide guidelines for the timing of external fixator removal. We cannot determine from our limited data the minimum pixel value in how many cortices would suggest safe removal, but we can say our criteria were not associated with subsequent refracture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据