Treatment of femoral neck fractures at the turn of the century
- Authors: Lirtsman V.M.1,2, Zorya V.I.1,2, Gnetetsky S.F.1,2
-
Affiliations:
- Moscow Medical Dental Institute. N. A. Semashko
- Moscow City Clinical Hospital No. 59
- Issue: Vol 4, No 2 (1997)
- Pages: 12-19
- Section: Original study articles
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/0869-8678/article/view/106692
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/vto106692
- ID: 106692
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
On the basis of world literature data review and personal observations the authors conclude that primary osteosynthesis should be performed on the day of patient’s admission in case no special contraindications are present. The application of massive monolithic fixators is not expedient because of their depress the reparative regeneration in fracture zone and damage blood supply of the femoral head. Two fixators are sufficient for stable osteosynthesis: distal fixator is placed with support at Adams arch and/or Markel «spur» and prevents varus deformity of the femoral head and neck; proximal fixator is inserted into cortex of the femoral neck and prevents the backwards displacement. Stabilisation of femoral neck fragments with screws should be performed by their maximum insertion into cortical bone. Unipolar prosthesis of the femoral head or total hip replacement are indicated mainly in failed osteosynthesis.
Keywords
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
V. M. Lirtsman
Moscow Medical Dental Institute. N. A. Semashko; Moscow City Clinical Hospital No. 59
Author for correspondence.
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow
V. I. Zorya
Moscow Medical Dental Institute. N. A. Semashko; Moscow City Clinical Hospital No. 59
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow
S. F. Gnetetsky
Moscow Medical Dental Institute. N. A. Semashko; Moscow City Clinical Hospital No. 59
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow
References
- Дворецкий Л. //Мед. газета. — 1996. — N 88—89 (5.11). — С. 12—13.
- Шестерня Н.А. Современные методы лечения и анализ исходов внутри- и околосуставных переломов длинных трубчатых костей:Автореф. ... дис. д-ра мед. наук. — М., 1992.
- Baker G., Barrick Е. //J. Bone Jt Surg. — 1978. — Vol. 60A, N 2. — P. 269—271.
- Benterund J. et al. //Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. — 1994. — Vol. 113. — P. 97—100.
- Berglund-Roden M. et al. //Acta Orthop. Scand.— 1994. - Vol. 65, N 3. — P. 287—294.
- Deyerle W. //Clin. Orthop. — 1965. — Vol. 152. — P. 49—84.
- Lin C. et al. //SIKOT—96, Final programme. — Amsterdam, 1996. — P. 329.
- Lindequist S. et al. //Acta Orthop. Scand. — 1993. — Vol. 64, N 1. — P. 67—70.
- Smith-Hoffer, Timmerman H. //Clin. Orthop. — 1988.— Vol. 230. — P. 127—140.
- Soreide O. et al. //Acta Orthop. Scand. — 1980. — Vol. 51, N 6. — P. 827—831.
- Stromqvist B. et al. //Ibid. — 1983. — Vol. 54, N 3. — P. 340—347.
- Stromqvist B. et al. //Ibid. — 1992. — Vol. 63, N 3. — P. 282—287.
- Thomgren K. //SIKOT—96, Final programme. — Amsterdam, 1996. — P. 155—156.
Supplementary files
