Active clinical trials for "Fractures, Bone"

The purpose of this study is to collect information about how people do after different treatments of a broken wrist to see if one treatment has better results.

Recording incidence of metal failure in transpedicular screws fixation of dorsal umbra spine fracture during first year follow up

Odontoid fracture is a common fracture accounting for 10-15% of all cervical fractures. It occurs in bimodal fashion in elderly and young patients. The classification of Anderson and Alonzo provides a guide for prognosis . Type I and type III have a good rate of union, while type II has a poor prognosis due to poor blood supply. Hence, operative fixation is recommended to avoid non-union. Treatment options for type II include anterior odontoid screw fixation and posterior C1-C2 fusion.Despite the excellent rates of bony union in posterior C1-C2 fusion, it is associated with higher morbidity, higher blood loss and significant limitation in the range of motion and rotation of the neck.the aim of the study Is to evaluate clinical and radiological outcome of anterior odontoid screw osteosynthesis in treatment of type 2 odontoid fracture.

This study is a prospective, departmental funded study examining the outcomes of Low Dose CT scans compared to Conventional Dose CT scans in patients who present to Duke University with a Distal Radius Fracture.

Patients with acute hip fractures are old and vulnerable. With a majoriry classified as being ASA 3 or more. Frequently they receive spinal anesthesia perioperatively inducing hypotension. Even a short hypotensive period may induce postop cardiac T roponinT leakage as well as renal failure noted by Changes in Serum Creatinin or Cýstatin C This will be investigated and correlated to intraoperative hypotension as step one. Preliminary this will be followed by an intervention with vasopressor treatment perioperatively to preserve an adequte MABP

The sacrum is the mechanical nucleus of the axial skeleton, serving as the base for the spinal column as well as the keystone for the pelvic ring. Sacral fractures occur in approximately 45% of all pelvic fractures. the mechanism of injury resulting in sacral fractures typically is one of high energy from motor vehicle accidents and fall from a height. Approximately 30% of sacral fractures are identified late. Unrecognized and inadequately treated sacral fractures may lead to painful deformity and progressive loss of neurological function. Delayed surgery for posttraumatic sacral deformity is complex, and the results are often less favorable than those of early surgery. Therefore, determination of an integrated diagnostic and therapeutic approach to sacral fractures should be a goal.

Hypothesis: Diagnostic ultrasound is an appropriate screening test for acute stress fracture in the lower extremity and is superior to x-ray. Primary Aims: To determine if diagnostic ultrasound is an appropriate screening test with high sensitivity and at least moderate specificity for the identification of acute stress fractures of the lower extremity. Methods: In this double-blind, prospective clinical study, subjects (age 14 years and up) suspected to have an acute stress fracture of the lower extremity will be recruited from the Sports Medicine clinic at the University of Virginia Health System in the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. Subjects will undergo the traditional diagnostic algorithm including screening x-ray as part of standard care. Subjects will then undergo a confirmatory MRI of the region of concern if the initial x-ray was negative as part of standard care. Any subject who does not require an MRI for clinical purposes (initial X-ray was positive) will have one completed for research purposes. All subjects will also undergo diagnostic ultrasound performed by a separate, blinded physician competent in diagnostic ultrasound for research purposes. A statistician in the Department of Public Health at the University of Virginia will be performing statistical analysis during data analysis. Findings will be analyzed using a McNemar chi-square test to evaluate for significant differences between the sensitivities of ultrasound and x-ray.

Is the anatomical reduction of osteochondral impaction in the acetabular fractures will improve the functional outcome? Despite the increasing amount of literature related to the management of anteromedial dome impactions and marginal impactions, there are still remaining issues and controversies pertaining mainly to the exact anatomy and location of the lesion, the best method of reduction, the need and type of subchondral void filling, the best method of stabilization, the need of reduction in elderly population and its true value as an outcome prognostic factor.

The purpose is to determine in a case-control study if an association exist between bone marrow adiposity and fragility fractures in post-menopausal women.

To date, the clinical benefits and harms of surgical intervention in proximal humerus fractures in children remain debatable. The practical question raised by orthopaedic surgeons is: for children and adolescent, are the clinical and radiological outcomes after non-operative management as equivalent as after surgical management for proximal humerus fractures? The investigators' hypothesis is that due to the healing potential of the proximal humerus, the outcome from this fracture is usually excellent. The investigators have applied for Caldicott approval to identify a cohort of eligible patient from NHS Tayside's radiography service. With the community health index (CHI) number, the investigators can review all shoulder X-rays performed in children and adolescents, aged from 10 to 18-year-old in NHS Tayside, from 2008 to 2015. The Caldicott approval also allowed the investigators to obtain clinical communication from the Clinical Portal (electronic summary healthcare records). The investigators will then conduct mail questionnaires, based on the Upper Extremities Functional Index (UEFI). The investigators will send out invitation letter with participation information and the UEFI questionnaires to the eligible patients; with return postages. If no response within 2 weeks, the investigators will send out 1 further reminder. If no further response, the patient will be excluded from the study.