Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_
Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_ Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_
Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics Abstract number: 26355 EFFECT OF SHOCK WAVE THERAPY IN CALCIFYING TENDINITIS Horng-Chaung HSU 1 , Teng-Le HUANG 1 , Ching Chieh YANG 2 , Jiunn-Jer WU 3 , Hsiu- Chen LIN 1 , Hong-Wen WU 1 1 China Medical University and University Hospital, Taichung (TAIWAN), 2 Youngfore Hospital, Taipei (TAIWAN), 3 Chung Shan Hospital, Taipei (TAIWAN) We prospectively studied extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for calcific tendinitis of the shoulder in 46 consecutive patients. All patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: treatment and control. The 33 patients in the treatment group received 2 courses of ESWT at the energy density of 0.55mJ/mm2 (1000 impulses). The control group underwent sham treatment with a dummy electrode (13 patients). Evaluation included the Constant score, pain scale, and radiographs. The ESWT results were good to excellent in 87.9% of shoulders (29/33) and fair in 12.1% (4/33), and the control results were fair in 69.2% (9/13) and poor in 30.1% (4/13). Among ESWT patients, calcium deposits were completely eliminated in 7 cases (21.2%), partially eliminated in 11 (36.3%), and unchanged in 15 (45.4%). In contrast, elimination was partial in 2 control patients (15.3%) and unchanged in 11 (84.7%). There was no significant difference between Gartner type I and type II groups in the Constant score (P >.05). ESWT shows promise for pain relief and functional restoration of calcific tendinitis with negligible complications 278
Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics Abstract number: 26373 LCP FOR FIXATION OF FREE FIBULA GRAFT: IN VITRO BIOMECHANICAL STUDY AND CLINICAL RESULTS Andrey SEREDA, Andrey GRITSYUK National Pirogov Medicine Center, Moscow (RUSSIA) Treatment of forearm bone defects more than 5 cm long is a challenging problem. In such cases the method of choice is vascularized fibula transfer. But the question is how to fixate graft. We hypothesized that the LCP would be the best, because we need 1) to fix fibula stable, 2) minimize blade pressure on bone surface (it is particularly important in circumstances of free vascularised graft) and 3) to achieve appropriate axial compression in two places between recipient bone and graft (bilocal compression). In order to help justify the use of the LCP for fixation of free fibula graft an In vitro biomechanical testing was performed. The 3.5 mm LCP were applied over a osteotomied bone simulating bone defect and free fibula graft. Blade pressure on bone surface with traditional and locking screws (bicortical and unicortical), axial compression with bicortical and unicortical screws and bilocal compression with bicortical and unicortical screws were studied. Mean blade pressure on bone with traditional and locking screw was 40.1N and 1.1N respectively, axial compession achieved 25.4N and biaxial 36.4N. So we suppose that it is better to fix free fibula by unicortical locking screws and than bilocal compression by traditional screws placed by the each side of the graft should be done. 11 patients with ulna or radius were treated by this technique. At the end in all cases defect was reconstructed successfully. In one case we have met fatigue plate failure, reosteosyntesis was made using another LCP. 279
- Page 227 and 228: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 229 and 230: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 231 and 232: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 233 and 234: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 235 and 236: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 237 and 238: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 239 and 240: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 241 and 242: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 243 and 244: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 245 and 246: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 247 and 248: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 249 and 250: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 251 and 252: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 253 and 254: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 255 and 256: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 257 and 258: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 259 and 260: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 261 and 262: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 263 and 264: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 265 and 266: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 267 and 268: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 269 and 270: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 271 and 272: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 273 and 274: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 275 and 276: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 277: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 281 and 282: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 283 and 284: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 285 and 286: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 287 and 288: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 289 and 290: Poster Topic: General Orthopaedics
- Page 291 and 292: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 293 and 294: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 295 and 296: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 297 and 298: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 299 and 300: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 301 and 302: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 303 and 304: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 305 and 306: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 307 and 308: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 309 and 310: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 311 and 312: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 313 and 314: Poster Topic: Infections Abstract n
- Page 315 and 316: Poster Topic: Minimally Invasive Su
- Page 317 and 318: Poster Topic: Minimally Invasive Su
- Page 319 and 320: Poster Topic: Minimally Invasive Su
- Page 321 and 322: Poster Topic: Minimally Invasive Su
- Page 323 and 324: Poster Topic: Minimally Invasive Su
- Page 325 and 326: Poster Topic: Minimally Invasive Su
- Page 327 and 328: Poster Topic: Minimally Invasive Su
Poster<br />
Topic: General Orthopaedics<br />
Abstract number: 26373<br />
LCP FOR FIXATION OF FREE FIBULA GRAFT: IN VITRO BIOMECHANICAL<br />
STUDY AND CLINICAL RESULTS<br />
Andrey SEREDA, Andrey GRITSYUK<br />
National Pirogov Medicine Center, Moscow (RUSSIA)<br />
Treatment of forearm bone defects more than 5 cm long is a challenging problem. In<br />
such cases the method of choice is vascularized fibula transfer. But the question is<br />
how to fixate graft. We hypothesized that the LCP would be the best, because we<br />
need 1) to fix fibula stable, 2) minimize blade pressure on bone surface (it is<br />
particularly important in circumstances of free vascularised graft) and 3) to achieve<br />
appropriate axial compression in two places between recipient bone and graft<br />
(bilocal compression). In order to help justify the use of the LCP for fixation of free<br />
fibula graft an In vitro biomechanical testing was performed. The 3.5 mm LCP were<br />
applied over a osteotomied bone simulating bone defect and free fibula graft. Blade<br />
pressure on bone surface with traditional and locking screws (bicortical and<br />
unicortical), axial compression with bicortical and unicortical screws and bilocal<br />
compression with bicortical and unicortical screws were studied. Mean blade<br />
pressure on bone with traditional and locking screw was 40.1N and 1.1N<br />
respectively, axial compession achieved 25.4N and biaxial 36.4N. So we suppose<br />
that it is better to fix free fibula by unicortical locking screws and than bilocal<br />
compression by traditional screws placed by the each side of the graft should be<br />
done. 11 patients with ulna or radius were treated by this technique. At the end in all<br />
cases defect was reconstructed successfully. In one case we have met fatigue plate<br />
failure, reosteosyntesis was made using another LCP.<br />
279