FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2017389639> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2017389639 endingPage "S20" @default.
• W2017389639 startingPage "S14" @default.
• W2017389639 abstract "Objectives: Antegrade femoral nailing through a piriformis fossa starting point in patients who are obese has been demonstrated to be problematic. Retrograde femoral nailing therefore has been advocated in this patient population, but little data exist to support such a recommendation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare antegrade and retrograde femoral nailing technique in both patients who are and are not obese. Design: Prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized, internal review board (IRB)-approved study. Setting: Four Level 1 trauma centers. Patients: Patients (151) with a femoral shaft fracture (OTA 32) treated with intramedullary nailing were studied. Thirty-two with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 comprised the obese group (OG), and 119 with a BMI of <30 comprised the nonobese group (NOG). Antegrade nailing was performed in 15 patients from the OG and 84 from the NOG. Retrograde nailing was performed in 17 patients from the OG and 35 from the NOG. Intervention: Reamed intramedullary nailing of a femoral shaft fracture. Main Outcome Measures: Patient and fracture characteristics, operative time, fluoroscopy time, healing, complications, and functional outcome based on the lower extremity measure (LEM) were evaluated. Results: Antegrade technique in the OG was associated with a 52% greater average operative time (94 minutes) compared with antegrade nailing in the NOG (62 minutes; P < 0.003). For retrograde nailing technique, there was no difference in the average operative time between the OG (67 minutes) and NOG (62 minutes; P = 0.51). Antegrade technique in the OG was associated with a 79% greater average radiation exposure time (247 seconds) compared with antegrade nailing in the NOG (135 seconds; P < 0.03). For retrograde nailing technique, average fluoroscopy time was similar between the OG (76 seconds) and the NOG (63 seconds; P = 0.44). Within the OG, antegrade nailing required 40% greater average operative time (94 minutes versus 67 minutes, P < 0.02) and more than 3 times more average fluoroscopy time (242 seconds versus 76 seconds, P < 0.002) than retrograde nailing. Thirty-eight patients from the original cohort were not available for follow-up. Of the 113 patients followed (average 9 months, range: 4 to 25 months), healing complications occurred similarly between the 2 groups, with 1 nonunion and 2 delayed unions in the OG (12%), and 3 nonunions and 9 delayed unions in the NOG (14%). Conclusions: This study provides evidence, in the form of decreased operative and radiation exposure times, to support the use of retrograde nailing technique for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures in patients who are obese. Also, antegrade nailing was found to require significantly more operative and radiation exposure time in the patient who is obese as opposed to the patients who is not obese. Although having similar baseline functional scores, patients who are obese recovered at a slower rate and more incompletely than patients who are not obese." @default.
• W2017389639 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2017389639 creator A5039141588 @default.
• W2017389639 creator A5054786486 @default.
• W2017389639 creator A5055821196 @default.
• W2017389639 creator A5056678811 @default.
• W2017389639 creator A5077859688 @default.
• W2017389639 date "2008-03-01" @default.
• W2017389639 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W2017389639 title "Results of Femoral Intramedullary Nailing in Patients Who are Obese Versus Those Who are not Obese: A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Study" @default.
• W2017389639 cites W116463328 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1539981146 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W160743010 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1823277873 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1908491907 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1910617829 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1930264100 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1964677217 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1966394356 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1976875832 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W1982931540 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2011037478 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2013640961 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2067149894 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2073619137 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2074189944 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2086467862 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2089560383 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2093109401 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2104498383 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2133916726 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2137535786 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2168797547 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2170488310 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2283631174 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2326104528 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2329291713 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W2916596946 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W4240225536 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W4241817112 @default.
• W2017389639 cites W4252174241 @default.
• W2017389639 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0b013e31813347ac" @default.
• W2017389639 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17805018" @default.
• W2017389639 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2017389639 type Work @default.
• W2017389639 sameAs 2017389639 @default.
• W2017389639 citedByCount "78" @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392012 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392013 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392014 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392015 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392016 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392017 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392018 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392019 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392020 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392021 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392022 @default.
• W2017389639 countsByYear W20173896392023 @default.
• W2017389639 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2017389639 hasAuthorship W2017389639A5039141588 @default.
• W2017389639 hasAuthorship W2017389639A5054786486 @default.
• W2017389639 hasAuthorship W2017389639A5055821196 @default.
• W2017389639 hasAuthorship W2017389639A5056678811 @default.
• W2017389639 hasAuthorship W2017389639A5077859688 @default.
• W2017389639 hasBestOaLocation W20173896391 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConcept C188816634 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConcept C2776805002 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConcept C2780221984 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConcept C92162645 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConceptScore W2017389639C126322002 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConceptScore W2017389639C141071460 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConceptScore W2017389639C188816634 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConceptScore W2017389639C2776805002 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConceptScore W2017389639C2780221984 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConceptScore W2017389639C71924100 @default.
• W2017389639 hasConceptScore W2017389639C92162645 @default.
• W2017389639 hasIssue "Supplement 3" @default.
• W2017389639 hasLocation W20173896391 @default.
• W2017389639 hasLocation W20173896392 @default.
• W2017389639 hasLocation W20173896393 @default.
• W2017389639 hasOpenAccess W2017389639 @default.
• W2017389639 hasPrimaryLocation W20173896391 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2156133006 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2321525292 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2333482768 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2412203649 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2424228276 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2507330234 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2606762804 @default.
• W2017389639 hasRelatedWork W2616705151 @default.
• W2017389639 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W2017389639 isParatext "false" @default.

• next