English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Thirteen matched pairs of cadaveric femurs were placed into two groups. In each group, a transverse fracture was created at a point 70% distal between the lesser trochanter and the adductor tubercle. One femur out of each matched pair was then stabilised with an interlocking intramedullary nail (nail only group) and the other femur was stabilised with plate augmentation after interlocking intramedullary nailing (plate augmentation group). The bending load to promote 5-mm displacement showed statistically significant differences between the plate augmentation group (mean 843.36 ± 409.13 N) and the nail only group (mean 315.02 ± 219.80 N) (p = 0.001). Torsional torque at the angle of 15 degrees showed statistically significant differences between the two groups; a mean of 2.09 ± 0.53 N·m for the plate augmentation group and a mean of 0.63 ± 0.46 N·m for the nail only group (p = 0.0001). We found a 2.6-fold increase in bending stiffness and a 3.3-fold increase in torsional stiffness in plate augmentation leaving a nail in situ compared to interlocking nailing only in the distal third fracture of femur.

international orthopaedics

Comparison of mechanical rigidity between plate augmentation leaving the nail in situ and interlocking nail using cadaveric fracture model of the femur