Active clinical trials for "Fractures, Bone"

Operative treatment, with tension band wiring or plate fixation, will be compared with non-operative treatment of displaced olecranon fractures (Mayo classification 2A and 2B) in patients 75 years or older.

Cast immobilization in situ versus open reduction and internal fixation of displaced medial epicondyle fractures in children between 7 and 16 years old. A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

This study is to improving outcome of pediatric both bone forearm fractures using minimally invasive procedure by intramedullary K-wires.

The aim of this study is to compare functional and radiological results in two groups of distal radius fractures treated with internal fixation with locking plate, and immobilized with antebrachial splint or compression bandage for 3 weeks.

Shaft fractures account for 20% of humeral fractures and 3% of all adult fractures in France, with an estimated incidence of 13 to 20/100,000 people. Men aged 21 to 30 years and women aged 60 to 80 years are particularly affected. Intramedullary nailing is among the standard treatments for humeral shaft fractures (when surgery is required). Once inserted, the nail is locked in order to limit stress on the fractured bone, as well as possible secondary rotational displacements or malunion. Bipolar interlocking (BI) is typically performed on both sides (proximal and distal) of the fracture site. This procedure is performed under radiological control, exposing the patient and care team to radiation (during the entire procedure). The objective of the treatment is to obtain consolidation of the fracture within 12 months, and to limit the occurrence of irreversible complications such as malunion or nonunion (2-10% at 12 months post-surgery). The "unipolar interlocking" (UI) technique has recently been introduced. In this technique, locking is performed only on the proximal side of the fracture site. By avoiding the distal approach, potential complications such as radial nerve damage, with the risk of irreversible paralysis (3.8-14.2% in studies of the BI technique in this indication) or the risk of infection on the distal side can be avoided. It also reduces operative time, and consequently the radiation received by patients and caregivers. However, the UI may be poorly positioned, resulting in malunion that requires revision surgery. Despite the absence of recommendations due to the lack of existing data, several teams use the UI in routine care. In this context, a descriptive cohort of 121 patients operated on at the Dijon University Hospital5 showed similar rates of consolidation between the 2 techniques (93.8% for UI versus 95.2% for BI, p=0.64), functional scores, and complications, as well as a significant 29% decrease in operating time in the UI group (mean + SD: 63.1±21.3 min versus 88.0±30.1 min for VB, p<0.01). These encouraging results, although limited by the retrospective and observational nature of the data, justify a prospective randomized trial comparing these two techniques.

Pelvic fractures are common presentations to major trauma centers and are associated with significant morbidity in polytrauma patients. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation is associated with a high incidence of surgical morbidity, while external fixators, used for both temporary stabilisation and as definitive management, have a complication rate of up to 62% [4], with poor patient tolerance, pin site infection and aseptic loosening the more commonly documented complications in the literature. Minimally invasive techniques have become more popular recently in the management of pelvic injuries due to their lower incidence of surgical morbidity. The application of a pelvic internal fixator (INFIX) has been presented as a comparable alternative to external fixation of anterior pelvic ring injuries.

This is a randomized control trial comparing the outcome of ORIF (open reduction and internal fixation) with EHA (elbow hemiarthroplasty) for distal humeral fractures in patients aged 50 years or above.

The purpose of this randomized control trial will be to determine whether the duration of bridge plate fixation of distal radius fractures can be reduced to 6-8 weeks without worsening of functional outcomes relative to the current standard of greater than 12 weeks of fixation. The secondary aim of the study is to determine whether a reduced duration of bridge plate fixation leads to an increase in wrist range of motion following plate removal compared to the standard duration of fixation. 100 patients with comminuted distal radius fractures that are indicated for bridge plate fixation will be randomized to the Accelerated Removal arm (n = 50) or the Standard Removal arm (n = 50).

Diagnosis of infection based on elevated serum markers of infection (ESR, CRP), discharging sinus, preoperative radiographs suggestive of bone infection and radiological findings . [6] infected nonunion mean the bone has previous fracture , the bone not healed may be one of the reasons it didn't heal because there is sub-acute infection , there is low grade colonization into the bone or around the wound preventing the bone from healing , it different from infected fracture which occur fairly acutely. [6, 7] Infected nonunion treated with systemic antibiotics alone, without using local antibiotic delivery systems associated with higher recurrence and reoperation rates. [7] This led to the development and use of medical-grade calcium sulfate (CS), CS facilitates osseous healing in an osteoconductive fashion by filling the bone void and preventing fibrous tissue

Surgical treatment for patients with a fracture of the ankle or distal radius is commonly offered on an outpatient basis. Patients are routinely discharged from hospital within 4 hours of their procedure. The surgery is commonly performed under peripheral nerve block with sedation, or under general anesthesia with postoperative peripheral nerve block, (if required for analgesic purposes). It is unclear which of these two strategies offers patients superior pain relief in the first few days following surgery. This trial aims to compare the pain intensity and analgesic medication consumption between patients in these two groups.