Use of bioactive and bioinert implants at treatment of factures
https://doi.org/10.20538/1682-0363-2012-6-160-165
Abstract
Compare characteristics of medical implants with oxide and calcium-phosphate coatings for surgical treatment of fractures of the humerus to implement them in clinical practice.
The work is based on an analysis of clinical observations and surgical treatment of 293 patients of both sexes, aged (34.1 ± 6.5) years, with closed fractures of the humerus. Bioinert plates were used in 155 patients, bioactive — at 138. The results of treatment was evaluated in terms of 2 and 4 months according to the criteria S.A. Muller (1999), C.R. Constant, A.H.G. Murley (1987), Jupiter J.B. (2006).
The osteosynthesis bioinert consolidation structures obtained in 98.1% of patients, excellent and good results were observed in 58.7%. In 1.9% of cases of fracture healing does not come, formed a false joint. In the group of patients who are treated with the use of titanium implants with calcium phosphate coating fracture healing received from 99.3% of patients, excellent and good results were seen in 73.9%. The use of bioactive plates gave significantly more good clinical response, compared with bioinert
implants, reducing the level of poor results in a formation of contractures and pseudarthrosis. In the early period of observation (up to 4 months) showed a significant reduction in neurovascular disorders, pain, improve mobility of the shoulder and elbow joints.
About the Author
V. P. Popov
Сибирский государственный медицинский университет, г. Томск
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Волна A.A., Владыкин А.Б. Переломы проксимального отдела плеча: возможность использования штифтов // Margo Anterior. 2001. № 5—6. С. 1—16.
2. Григорьян А., Топоркова А. Проблемы интеграции им-плантатов в костную ткань (теоретические аспекты). М.: Техносфера, 2007. 130 с.
3. Набоков А.Ю. Современный остеосинтез. М.: Мед. ин-форм. агентство. 2007. 400 с.
4. Петровская Т.С., Шахов В.П., Верещагин В.И., Игнатов В.П. Биоматериалы и имплантаты для травматоло-гии и ортопедии. Томск: Изд-во ТПУ, 2011. 307 с.
5. Хэнч Л., Джонс Д. Биоматериалы, искусственные органы и инжиниринг тканей. М.: Техносфера, 2007. 304 с.
6. Constant C.R., Murley A.H.G. A clinical method of func-tional assessment of the shoulder // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1987. V. 214. P. 160—164.
7. Jupiter J.B., Doornberg J.N. The Posttraumatic Stiff Elbow: A Historical Perspective of Treatment. The Stiff Elbow (Monograph Series by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons). 2006. P. 1—8.
8. Muller C.A., Strohm P., Morakis Ph., Pfister U. Intramedullary nailing of the tibia: Current status of primary unreamed nailing. Part 1: Results for closed fractures // Injury 1999. V. 30, № 3. P. 39—43.
9. Nakayama H., Kawase T., Kogami H. et al. Evaluation by bone scintigraphy of osteogenic activity of commercial bioceramics (porous β-TCP and HAp particles) subcutaneously implanted in rats // J. Biomater. Appl. 2010. V. 24. P. 751—768.
10. Tong G.On., Bavonratanavech S. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO): Concepts and cases presented by the AO East Asia (Ao Manual of Fracture Management). AO Foundation, Switzerland, 2006. 370 p.
Review
For citations:
Popov V.P. Use of bioactive and bioinert implants at treatment of factures. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2012;11(6):160-165. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20538/1682-0363-2012-6-160-165
Views:
712
Email this article 