Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2003 April;54(2) > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2003 April;54(2):57-66

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA ORTOPEDICA E TRAUMATOLOGICA

A Journal on Orthopedics and Traumatology


Official Journal of the Piedmontese-Ligurian-Lombard Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology
Indexed/Abtracted in: EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

 

Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2003 April;54(2):57-66

100° CONGRESS OF THE PIEMONTESE-LIGURIAN-LOMBARD SOCIETY OF ORTHOPAEDICS AND TRAUMATOLOGY (S.P.L.L.O.T.) - Pavia, June 20-21, 2003 

 BONE AND JOINT DEFORMITIES - SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

Inner contradictions of modern external fixation. Causes, significance and ways of their resolution

Solomin L., Kornilov N.

Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics “R.R.Vreden”, St. Petrosburg, Russia

The biomechanical components of external fixation are in conflict with one another due to the fact that their optimal solutions are based on contradicting needs. The conditions that provide for bone fragment fixation rigidity are often the leading cause of these contradictions. Contradictions also exist with regard to other requirements associated with the external fixation device. These are: consideration of some of the principal vessels and nerves while installing the transosseous elements, acupunctural points, piezoelectric effects, possibility of automation and monitoring during external fixation, comfort of usage, patient comfort, aesthetics, etc. The compromise resolution to solve these inner contradictions and advancement of external fixation is needed. In fact, a special set of criteria should be developed and used for the frame to be clinically effective. On its basis, the optimal type and concrete frame configuration may be used. More than a decade of studies allows the authors define it as follows:
1. Application of the “Method of unified designation of external fixation”.
2. Administration of different types of external supports.
3. Administration of different types of transosseous elements.
4. Fulfilment of several rules of installation and usage of transosseous elements.
5. Application of distraction, compression, rotation of bone fragments or the combination of these methods, as required by the purposes of osteosynthesis.
The line of external fixation development based on the above-mentioned criteria complex was named the “Method of Combined External Fixation” (CEF) (Patents of the RF ## 1657168, 1750665, 4706740, 2069994, 2062611, 2068241, 2089099, 2121814, 2123307, 22139005, 2160060; positive resolutions ## 99100217/14, 2000132799/14).

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page