Comparison Between Uniplanar External Fixation VS Dynamic External Fixation "Suzuki Frame" In Treatment Of Phalangeal Fractures | ||||
| Benha Journal of Applied Sciences | ||||
| Article 3, Volume 7, Issue 8, August 2022, Page 17-26 PDF (820.38 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Research Papers | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/bjas.2022.269860 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| M A.Elbehiry; H A.Bassioni; W A.kandel | ||||
| Orthopedic Surgery, Dept., Faculty of Medicine, Benha Univ., Benha, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: In the skeletal system, phalangeal fractures are among the most frequent and most often treated conservatively as a minor injury. An open incision, dissection, and the use of K-wire for internal fixation are often necessary because the smaller bone pieces or less fastness in fixation tugged by local ligament make early mobilisation difficult. The purpose of this research was to compare the results of uniplanar external fixation vs external dynamic fixation of phalangeal fractures of the hand. During this investigation, 20 patients with phalangeal fractures of the hand were treated with either uniplanar external fixation or external dynamic fixation. For this research, all of the patients included were cared for at Benha University Hospital or Kafr-Elshiekh General Hospital between January of 2019 and March of 2019. According on the kind of fixation, the twenty patients were split into two groups. Uniplanar External Fixation: 10 patients in Group 1. Patients in Group 2 who had Dynamic External Fixation "Suzuki Frame" were included. The patients in this study were between the ages of 19 and 62. There were 15 men and 5 women in all. A total of six patients had a problem with their dominant hand, whereas 14 patients had a problem with their nondominant hand. A total of 20.0 percent of patients in group 1 had excellent results, 40 percent had good results, ten percent had fair results, and 30 percent had poor results, while in group 2, three patients had excellent results, 40 percent had good results, 30 percent had fair results, and none had poor results. Complications included stiffness in 20% of patients in group 1, 10% in group 2, 10% in group 3, and 10% in group 2; in group 1, 10% had non-union of fracture; in group 2, 20% had stiffness and 20% had loosening of fixator; and in group 2, 0% had non-union of fracture or pin-tract infection. Phalangeal fractures may be treated with the mini external fixator. Reduced soft tissue dissection, a high rate of union (95 percent), and the ability to move nearby joints are also advantages. The use of a small external fixator in open fractures enables for wound examination and treatment without the need of additional hardware at the fracture site. Using an external dynamic fixator may save you time and money over open surgery. As a result of this, it may be re-adjusted in the outpatient clinic, which provides solid support and stability. It prevents stiffness by allowing early mobilisation of the proximal interphalangeal joint. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Uniplanar External Fixation; Dynamic External Fixation; Suzuki Frame; Phalangeal Fractures | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 80 PDF Download: 296 |
||||
