FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2086917526> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2086917526 endingPage "102" @default.
• W2086917526 startingPage "94" @default.
• W2086917526 abstract "Background: Humeral shaft fractures can be effectively treated by either antegrade or retrograde locked intramedullary nailing, but these two methods have not been adequately compared. The present study compared the effectiveness and potential risks of these two approaches on middle humeral shaft fractures using the same locked nails. Methods: In this prospective comparative study, 92 fractures in 92 patients with middle humeral shaft fractures were randomly allocated to receive either antegrade or retrograde locked nailing by sealed-envelope technique. The clinical outcomes of fracture healing, time to healing, complications, elbow and shoulder functional recovery, and time for functional recovery were compared. Results: Retrograde nailing required significantly longer time than antegrade nailing (64.8 vs. 51.3 minutes; p < 0.01) Except for three patients lost to follow-up, the average follow-up time was 18.6 months for 44 fractures in the antegrade group and 19.8 months for 45 fractures in the retrograde group. The fracture healed in 42 fractures (95%) in the antegrade group versus 42 fractures (93%) in the retrograde group, and this difference was not significant. After exclusion of two patients with brachial plexus injury and three with head injury, functional recovery was compared between 41 patients with antegrade and 43 with retrograde nailing. For shoulder joints, the difference in the average Neer shoulder score between the two groups was statistically significant (90.8 vs. 93.5; p = 0.03). However, if four elderly patients were excluded, the average score in the antegrade group was 91.9, and the difference became insignificant (p = 0.1). Still, the antegrade group needed significantly longer time for shoulder functional recovery (16.4 vs. 8.3 weeks; p < 0.01). For elbow joints, the average postoperative Mayo elbow performance score (96.3 vs. 94.8; p = 0.16) did not differ significantly between these two approaches, but the retrograde approach needed significantly longer time for elbow functional recovery (3.9 vs. 8.8 weeks; p < 0.01). All patients, except those with associated injuries, resumed their pretrauma occupations or activities. Conclusion: With proper patient selection, antegrade and retrograde nailing have similar treatment results, including healing rate and eventual functional recovery for middle humeral fractures. It is recommended that retrograde nailing be used in patients with a wide medullary canal or preexisting shoulder problems and antegrade nailing be used in patients with young age or a small medullary canal. In critically ill patients, antegrade nailing is preferred because of shorter operation time." @default.
• W2086917526 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2086917526 creator A5010348469 @default.
• W2086917526 creator A5053196661 @default.
• W2086917526 date "2008-07-01" @default.
• W2086917526 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2086917526 title "Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Antegrade and Retrograde Locked Nailing for Middle Humeral Shaft Fracture" @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1497735008 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1512849076 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1765741516 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1904193044 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1974437125 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1979418128 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1982381462 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1984582276 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1994840036 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W1998527668 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2010074332 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2036750224 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2039201602 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2039441137 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2039584252 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2051309664 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2060950372 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2073202173 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2073740696 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2079601658 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2121538472 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2164215134 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2186871751 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2243823794 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2298896106 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W2315822155 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W3184230120 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W4240600923 @default.
• W2086917526 cites W68812781 @default.
• W2086917526 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0b013e31812eed7f" @default.
• W2086917526 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18580523" @default.
• W2086917526 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2086917526 type Work @default.
• W2086917526 sameAs 2086917526 @default.
• W2086917526 citedByCount "44" @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262012 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262013 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262014 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262015 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262016 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262017 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262018 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262019 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262020 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262021 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262022 @default.
• W2086917526 countsByYear W20869175262023 @default.
• W2086917526 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2086917526 hasAuthorship W2086917526A5010348469 @default.
• W2086917526 hasAuthorship W2086917526A5053196661 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C188816634 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C2776206872 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C2781151446 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C2781184374 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C3017506456 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C8337478 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConcept C92162645 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C141071460 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C188816634 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C2776206872 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C2781151446 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C2781184374 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C3017506456 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C71924100 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C8337478 @default.
• W2086917526 hasConceptScore W2086917526C92162645 @default.
• W2086917526 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2086917526 hasLocation W20869175261 @default.
• W2086917526 hasLocation W20869175262 @default.
• W2086917526 hasOpenAccess W2086917526 @default.
• W2086917526 hasPrimaryLocation W20869175261 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W1486077038 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W1995792770 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W2045912488 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W2352979028 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W2380770444 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W2390158643 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W2391044264 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W2619814787 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W3031807650 @default.
• W2086917526 hasRelatedWork W3033602015 @default.
• W2086917526 hasVolume "65" @default.
• W2086917526 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2086917526 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2086917526 magId "2086917526" @default.
• W2086917526 workType "article" @default.