Open Reduction with Internal Fixation Olecranon Fracture
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Unicompartmental Knee Replacement
This is a repository copy of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/120113/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Takahashi, T, Pandit, HG orcid.org/0000-0001-7392-8561 and Phil, D (2017) Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. Journal of Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery, 4 (2). pp. 55-60. ISSN 0021-8790 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jajs.2017.08.009 © 2017 International Society for Knowledge for Surgeons on Arthroscopy and Arthroplasty. Published by Elsevier, a division of RELX India, Pvt. Ltd. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Accepted Manuscript Title: Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Author: Tsuneari Takahashi PII: S2214-9635(17)30041-X DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jajs.2017.08.009 Reference: JAJS 97 To appear in: Authors: Hemant G. -
Procedure Coding in ICD-9-CM and ICD- 10-PCS
Procedure Coding in ICD-9-CM and ICD- 10-PCS ICD-9-CM Volume 3 Procedures are classified in volume 3 of ICD-9-CM, and this section includes both an Alphabetic Index and a Tabular List. This volume follows the same format, organization and conventions as the classification of diseases in volumes 1 and 2. ICD-10-PCS ICD-10-PCS will replace volume 3 of ICD-9-CM. Unlike ICD-10-CM for diagnoses, which is similar in structure and format as the ICD-9-CM volumes 1 and 2, ICD-10-PCS is a completely different system. ICD-10-PCS has a multiaxial seven-character alphanumeric code structure providing unique codes for procedures. The table below gives a brief side-by-side comparison of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-PCS. ICD-9-CM Volume3 ICD-10-PCS Follows ICD structure (designed for diagnosis Designed and developed to meet healthcare coding) needs for a procedure code system Codes available as a fixed or finite set in list form Codes constructed from flexible code components (values) using tables Codes are numeric Codes are alphanumeric Codes are 3-4 digits long All codes are seven characters long ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-PCS are used to code only hospital inpatient procedures. Hospital outpatient departments, other ambulatory facilities, and physician practices are required to use CPT and HCPCS to report procedures. ICD-9-CM Conventions in Volume 3 Code Also In volume 3, the phrase “code also” is a reminder to code additional procedures only when they have actually been performed. -
Locking Small Fragment Overview
Surgical Technique Locking Small Fragment Overview PERI-LOC™ Locked Plating System Locking Small Fragment Overview Surgical Technique Table of contents Product overview ...................................................................................2 Introduction .............................................................................................2 Indications ...............................................................................................2 Design features and benefits .................................................................3 System overview ....................................................................................4 Implant overview ...................................................................................10 Surgical technique ................................................................................23 Fracture reduction ...................................................................................23 Clavicle Locking Plate .............................................................................24 3.5mm Proximal Humerus Locking Plate ................................................25 Distal Humerus Locking Plates ...............................................................26 Olecranon Locking Plate .........................................................................28 3.5mm Lateral Proximal Tibia Locking Plate ......................................... 29 3.5mm Medial Distal Tibia Locking Plate .............................................. 30 3.5mm Anterolateral -
Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF)
FACT SHEET FOR PATIENTS AND FAMILIES Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) What is it and why do I need it? Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is surgery to repair a broken bone. Open reduction means the doctor makes an incision (cut) to reach the bones and move them back into their normal position. Internal fixation means metal screws, plates, sutures, or rods are placed on the bone to keep it in place while it heals. The internal fixation will not be removed. Why do I need it? This surgery is done on an arm or a leg to repair fractures Before After that would not heal properly with a cast or splint alone. Your surgeon may recommend ORIF if: In the picture on the left, the arm bone is severely broken. In the picture on the right, the arm bone is held • The bone is broken into many pieces together with metal devices called internal fixation. • The bone is sticking out of the skin They will not be removed after the bone heals. • The bone is not lined up correctly • A closed reduction (without opening the skin) Talking with your doctor was done before and it didn’t heal properly The table below lists the most common potential benefits, • A joint is dislocated risks, and alternatives for ORIF surgery to repair a broken This surgery should allow your bone to heal properly. bone. There may be other benefits or risks in your unique When it does, you will have less pain and be better able to medical situation. -
Bone Limb Upper
Shoulder Pectoral girdle (shoulder girdle) Scapula Acromioclavicular joint proximal end of Humerus Clavicle Sternoclavicular joint Bone: Upper limb - 1 Scapula Coracoid proc. 3 angles Superior Inferior Lateral 3 borders Lateral angle Medial Lateral Superior 2 surfaces 3 processes Posterior view: Acromion Right Scapula Spine Coracoid Bone: Upper limb - 2 Scapula 2 surfaces: Costal (Anterior), Posterior Posterior view: Costal (Anterior) view: Right Scapula Right Scapula Bone: Upper limb - 3 Scapula Glenoid cavity: Glenohumeral joint Lateral view: Infraglenoid tubercle Right Scapula Supraglenoid tubercle posterior anterior Bone: Upper limb - 4 Scapula Supraglenoid tubercle: long head of biceps Anterior view: brachii Right Scapula Bone: Upper limb - 5 Scapula Infraglenoid tubercle: long head of triceps brachii Anterior view: Right Scapula (with biceps brachii removed) Bone: Upper limb - 6 Posterior surface of Scapula, Right Acromion; Spine; Spinoglenoid notch Suprspinatous fossa, Infraspinatous fossa Bone: Upper limb - 7 Costal (Anterior) surface of Scapula, Right Subscapular fossa: Shallow concave surface for subscapularis Bone: Upper limb - 8 Superior border Coracoid process Suprascapular notch Suprascapular nerve Posterior view: Right Scapula Bone: Upper limb - 9 Acromial Clavicle end Sternal end S-shaped Acromial end: smaller, oval facet Sternal end: larger,quadrangular facet, with manubrium, 1st rib Conoid tubercle Trapezoid line Right Clavicle Bone: Upper limb - 10 Clavicle Conoid tubercle: inferior -
Trapezius Origin: Occipital Bone, Ligamentum Nuchae & Spinous Processes of Thoracic Vertebrae Insertion: Clavicle and Scapul
Origin: occipital bone, ligamentum nuchae & spinous processes of thoracic vertebrae Insertion: clavicle and scapula (acromion Trapezius and scapular spine) Action: elevate, retract, depress, or rotate scapula upward and/or elevate clavicle; extend neck Origin: spinous process of vertebrae C7-T1 Rhomboideus Insertion: vertebral border of scapula Minor Action: adducts & performs downward rotation of scapula Origin: spinous process of superior thoracic vertebrae Rhomboideus Insertion: vertebral border of scapula from Major spine to inferior angle Action: adducts and downward rotation of scapula Origin: transverse precesses of C1-C4 vertebrae Levator Scapulae Insertion: vertebral border of scapula near superior angle Action: elevates scapula Origin: anterior and superior margins of ribs 1-8 or 1-9 Insertion: anterior surface of vertebral Serratus Anterior border of scapula Action: protracts shoulder: rotates scapula so glenoid cavity moves upward rotation Origin: anterior surfaces and superior margins of ribs 3-5 Insertion: coracoid process of scapula Pectoralis Minor Action: depresses & protracts shoulder, rotates scapula (glenoid cavity rotates downward), elevates ribs Origin: supraspinous fossa of scapula Supraspinatus Insertion: greater tuberacle of humerus Action: abduction at the shoulder Origin: infraspinous fossa of scapula Infraspinatus Insertion: greater tubercle of humerus Action: lateral rotation at shoulder Origin: clavicle and scapula (acromion and adjacent scapular spine) Insertion: deltoid tuberosity of humerus Deltoid Action: -
Upper Extremity Fractures
Department of Rehabilitation Services Physical Therapy Standard of Care: Distal Upper Extremity Fractures Case Type / Diagnosis: This standard applies to patients who have sustained upper extremity fractures that require stabilization either surgically or non-surgically. This includes, but is not limited to: Distal Humeral Fracture 812.4 Supracondylar Humeral Fracture 812.41 Elbow Fracture 813.83 Proximal Radius/Ulna Fracture 813.0 Radial Head Fractures 813.05 Olecranon Fracture 813.01 Radial/Ulnar shaft fractures 813.1 Distal Radius Fracture 813.42 Distal Ulna Fracture 813.82 Carpal Fracture 814.01 Metacarpal Fracture 815.0 Phalanx Fractures 816.0 Forearm/Wrist Fractures Radius fractures: • Radial head (may require a prosthesis) • Midshaft radius • Distal radius (most common) Residual deformities following radius fractures include: • Loss of radial tilt (Normal non fracture average is 22-23 degrees of radial tilt.) • Dorsal angulation (normal non fracture average palmar tilt 11-12 degrees.) • Radial shortening • Distal radioulnar (DRUJ) joint involvement • Intra-articular involvement with step-offs. Step-off of as little as 1-2 mm may increase the risk of post-traumatic arthritis. 1 Standard of Care: Distal Upper Extremity Fractures Copyright © 2007 The Brigham and Women's Hospital, Inc. Department of Rehabilitation Services. All rights reserved. Types of distal radius fracture include: • Colle’s (Dinner Fork Deformity) -- Mechanism: fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH) with radial shortening, dorsal tilt of the distal fragment. The ulnar styloid may or may not be fractured. • Smith’s (Garden Spade Deformity) -- Mechanism: fall backward on a supinated, dorsiflexed wrist, the distal fragment displaces volarly. • Barton’s -- Mechanism: direct blow to the carpus or wrist. -
Wilson Osteotomy Stabilised by Means of Internal Fixation for the Treatment of Hallux Valgus
Acta Orthop. Belg., 2004, 70, 57-63 Wilson osteotomy stabilised by means of internal fixation for the treatment of hallux valgus Panagiotis GIVISSIS, Dimitrios KARATAGLIS, Anastasios CHRISTODOULOU, Ioannis TERZIDIS, John POURNARAS The results achieved in 20 patients (32 feet) who tomy did not include any type of internal stabilisa- underwent Wilson’s osteotomy of the first metatarsal tion ; the operation therefore frequently necessitat- for the treatment of hallux valgus were reviewed. In ed prolonged plaster cast immobilisation due to the all cases the osteotomy site was stabilised with one or lack of inherent mechanical stability. two cortical screws. The patients’ average age was Some authors have subsequently tried various 50.7 years (range : 34-74 years) and they were fol- types of internal fixation of the osteotomy site, in lowed for a mean period of 33.1 months (range 12- 63 months). order to obviate the need for plaster cast immobili- The average AOFAS score was 85.5 (range : 62-100) sation (1, 8, 21). In this paper the results of Wilson’s at the final follow-up and in 84.4% of the cases the osteotomy stabilised with one or two cortical final outcome was very satisfactory as far as sympto- screws are presented. matic improvement was concerned. Wilson’s osteotomy stabilised with cortical screws PATIENTS AND METHODS was found to reliably give satisfactory correction of the hallux valgus and first intermetatarsal angles, Twenty patients (32 feet) who underwent Wilson’s while allowing safe patient mobilisation and early osteotomy with internal fixation with one or two screws weight bearing. -
Primary Arthrodesis Versus Open Reduction Internal
ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY ANZJSurg.com Primary arthrodesis versus open reduction internal fixation for complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations: a retrospective study comparing functional and radiological outcomes Nathan Kirzner , Wesley Teoh, Sianne Toemoe, Tim Maher, Rejith Mannambeth, Andrew Hughes, Daniel Goldbloom, Hamish Curry and Harvinder Bedi Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Key words Abstract anatomical reduction, complete Lisfranc fracture dislocation, functional outcome, open reduction Background: The aims of this retrospective study were to compare the functional and internal fixation, primary arthrodesis. radiological outcomes of primary arthrodesis and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of complete Lisfranc fracture dislocations. Correspondence Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 39 patients treated for a complete Lisfranc frac- Dr Nathan Kirzner, Alfred Hospital, 55 Commercial ture dislocation, defined as Myerson types A and C2, over a period of 8 years at a level Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. 1 trauma centre was performed. Of these, 18 underwent primary arthrodesis, and 21 ORIF. Email: [email protected] The primary outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society N. Kirzner MBBS, BSc, MSurgSC, MRadTher; score, the validated Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire functional tool, and the second- W. Teoh MBBS; S. Toemoe MBBS; T. Maher ary outcome was the radiological Wilppula classification of anatomical reduction. MBBS; R. Mannambeth MBBS, MS (Ortho), DNB Results: Significantly better functional outcomes were seen in the primary arthrodesis (Ortho); A. Hughes FRACS (Ortho); D. Goldbloom group. These patients had a mean Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire score of 30.1 MBBS, FRACS (Ortho); H. Curry MBBS, FRACS points, compared with 45.1 for the ORIF group (P = 0.017). -
Olecranon Bone Grafting for the Treatment of Nonunion After Distal Finger Replantation
Ercin et al. Plast Aesthet Res 2020;7:38 Plastic and DOI: 10.20517/2347-9264.2020.56 Aesthetic Research Original Article Open Access Olecranon bone grafting for the treatment of nonunion after distal finger replantation Burak Sercan Ercin1,2, Fatih Kabakas1,2, Musa Kemal Keles1,2, Ismail Bulent Ozcelik1,3,4, Berkan Mersa1,3,4 1IST-EL Microsurgery Group, Istanbul 34245, Turkey. 2Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Medicalpark Gebze Hospital, Kocaeli 41400, Turkey. 3Department of Hand Surgery, Yeni Yuzyil University, Gaziosmanpasa Hospital, Istanbul 34245, Turkey. 4Nisantasi University, Istanbul 34398, Turkey. Correspondence to: Dr. Burak Sercan Ercin, Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Medicalpark Gebze Hospital, Kocaeli 41400, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected] How to cite this article: Ercin BS, Kabakas F, Keles MK, Ozcelik IB, Mersa B. Olecranon bone grafting for the treatment of nonunion after distal finger replantation. Plast Aesthet Res 2020;7:38. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2020.56 Received: 29 Mar 2020 First Decision: 4 Jun 2020 Revised: 12 Jun 2020 Accepted: 7 Jul 2020 Published: 19 Jul 2020 Academic Editor: A Thione Copy Editor: Cai-Hong Wang Production Editor: Tian Zhang Abstract Aim: Although not very popular, the olecranon bone graft is a useful option for this type of operation due to the minimal donor morbidity and its ease of use in small bone defect reconstruction and non-union therapy. To our best knowledge, few studies have evaluated the use of the olecranon bone graft as a treatment for non-union after distal finger replantation. Our aim in this report was to present our experience of using olecranon grafts in our nonunion patients undergoing distal replantations. -
Olecranon Fractures Introduction
Olecranon Fractures Steven I. Rabin, M.D. Medical Director, Musculoskeletal Services Dreyer Medical Clinic Clinical Associate Professor, Loyola University Introduction: • General Comments – Diagnosis/Evaluation – Treatment Options – Complications • Specific Injuries (Fractures & Dislocations) – Isolated Olecranon Fractures – Complex Fractures – Olecranon Fractures in Children and the Elderly Olecranon Fracture Clinical Findings • Patients present with deformity, swelling & pain • Inability to Extend the Elbow • Don’t Miss: – Compartment Syndrome – Open wounds Remember the ulnar border is subcutaneous and even superficial wounds can expose the bone – Nerve injuries (especially ulnar nerve) Especially with open fractures Treatment of Olecranon Injuries • Successful Functional Outcome Correlates directly with: – Accuracy of Anatomic Joint Reduction – Restoration of Mechanical Stability that allows Early Motion – Respect for the Soft Tissues – Maintain the Extensor Mechanism Classification • Multiple attempts at classifying olecranon fractures: – Colton – Morrey – Schatzker – AO/ASIF –OTA • Classification helps decide treatment options Colton Classification • Type I: avulsion • Type II: oblique • Type III: associated with dislocation • Type IV: multisegmented Mayo Clinic Classification •Type I: Non-displaced 12% •Type II: Displaced/stable 82% • Type III: Elbow unstable 6% Morrey BF, JBJS 77A: 718-21, 1995 Treatment Overview • If Nondisplaced – Treat with Early Motion • If Displaced – Treat with Open Reduction – Transverse: Tension Band – -
Arthroscopic Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Plateau Fractures
ID Design Press, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2019 Apr 15; 7(7):1133-1137. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.248 eISSN: 1857-9655 Clinical Science Arthroscopic Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Plateau Fractures Sherif Hamdy Mohamed Zawam*, Ahmed Mahmoud Gad Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt Abstract Citation: Zawam SHM, Gad AM. Arthroscopic Assisted BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fractures present an important entity in orthopaedic fractures. Arthroscopic- Reduction and Internal Fixation of Tibial Plateau assisted reduction and internal fixation is a good alternative to ORIF as it has the advantage of direct visualisation Fractures. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Apr 15; 7(7):1133-1137. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.248 of the articular surface of the plateau, direct assessment of the reduction of the articular surface, and managing Keywords: Arthroscopic assisted; Tibial plateau any associated intra-articular pathology. fractures; ORIF; Schatzker *Correspondence: Sherif Hamdy Mohamed Zawam. AIM: Our study aim is to determine the results of arthroscopic assisted reduction and internal fixation of tibial Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. E- plateau fractures. mail: [email protected] Received: 07-Feb-2019; Revised: 25-Mar-2019; METHODS: This study involved 25 patients with tibial plateau fractures presenting to the emergency department Accepted: 26-Mar-2019; Online first: 14-Apr-2019 of Cairo University Hospitals between the periods of November 2016 and May 2017. The patients were followed Copyright: © 2019 Sherif Hamdy Mohamed Zawam, up for an average of 14 months (11-18 months). According to Schatzker’s classification, five patients had type I, Ahmed Mahmoud Gad.