Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: Proximal femoral fractures (PFF) are a significant health concern among the elderly, often leading to complications and high mortality rates. Intramedullary nailing is widely considered the most effective treatment for lateral proximal femoral fractures (LPFF), with the Tip Apex Distance (TAD) being a crucial predictor of surgical success. This study aimed to compare outcomes between patients treated with and without the ADAPT (ADAptive Positioning Technology) system, which aids in the precise placement of the cephalic screw.
Materials And Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 97 patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated in 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: those treated with the ADAPT system (group I, n=34) and those treated without it (group II, n=63). Fractures were classified according to AO/OTA classification. The primary outcomes measured were operative time, cephalic screw angle, TAD, and incidence of lag screw cut-out. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests and t-tests, with significance set at P < 0.05.
Results: The ADAPT system did not significantly reduce TAD (18.21 mm in the ADAPT group vs. 19.94 mm in the control group, p=0.149). Operative times were similar between the groups. The incidence of lag screw cut-out was low in both groups, with no significant differences. The study confirmed a strong correlation between higher TAD and increased risk of screw cut-out, underscoring the importance of precise screw placement.
Discussion: Computer-assisted surgery, such as the ADAPT system, aims to enhance the accuracy of cephalic screw placement. In this study, the ADAPT system didn't demonstrate a statistically significant advantage in reducing TAD or preventing screw cut-out. Nevertheless, the critical role of TAD in preventing fixation failure was reaffirmed, emphasising the need for precise surgical techniques.
Conclusion: While the ADAPT system did not show a significant advantage in reducing TAD or preventing screw cut-out in this study, the importance of achieving optimal TAD in cephalomedullary nailing was reinforced. Future research should continue to explore the role of computer-assisted systems in enhancing surgical accuracy and improving outcomes for patients with LPFF.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11257832 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.52965/001c.121094 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!