PATIENTS AND METHODS: A database of patients aged over 16 years who had been diagnosed with a mandibular fracture between January 2000 and December 2007 at
the University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland’s largest Cranio-Maxillofacial-Surgery Centre, was retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ data including gender, age, mechanism of accident, fracture site and associated injuries were analysed and compared with previously published data.
RESULTS: There were a total of 420 patients with 707 mandibular fractures. The two most common causes of injury were road traffic accidents (28%) and various types of sports injuries (21%). A total of 13% of the patients were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at admission. Fractures were predominantly situated in the condyle/subcondyle (43%) and in the symphysis/parasymphysis region (35%). AZD7762 Occurrences of fractures in the angle and in the body were low, at 12% and 7% respectively.
CONCLUSION: In contrast to other highly developed countries, sports-and leisure-related
accidents outnumbered motor vehicle accidents and altercations. The data presented here supports the assumption of a correlation of trauma cause and fracture pattern.”
“Study Design. Biomechanical analysis and simulations VX 809 of correction mechanisms and force levels during scoliosis instrumentation using two types of pedicle screws and primary correction maneuvers.
Objectives. To biomechanically analyze implant-vertebra and intervertebral forces during scoliosis correction, to address the hypothesis that multi degree of freedom (MDOF) postloading screws with a direct incremental segmental translation (DIST) correction technique significantly reduce the loads as compared with monoaxial (MA) tulip-top design screws with a rod derotation technique (RDT).
Summary
of Background Data. MA screw PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitor 3 is widely used for spinal instrumentation. The MDOF screw was introduced as a refinement of the correction philosophy based on multiaxial screws. The kinematics of the MDOF construct is fundamentally different and offers more degrees of freedom than that of the MA construct; however, a systematic comparison of their biomechanics has not been done so far.
Methods. A biomechanical model was developed to simulate the instrumentation of six scoliotic patients, first with the MDOF screws and DIST. Then, the instrumentation with MA screws and RDT was simulated using the same cases. Thirty more simulations were done to study the force-level sensitivity to small implant placement variation.
Results. There was a small average difference of 7, 5, and 4 between the two simulated systems for the computed main thoracic Cobb angle, kyphosis, and apical axial rotation, respectively.