The choice of intramedullary devices for the femur and the tibia in osteogenesis imperfecta

Benjamin Joseph, Gleeson Rebello, B. Chandra Kant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The results of intramedullary rodding of 50 femoral and 25 tibial segments were analyzed retrospectively. The techniques of femoral rodding included single Rush rodding, dual Rush rodding and Sheffield telescoping rodding. Single Rush rods or Sheffield rods were used in the tibia. The frequencies of fractures following rodding and implant-related complications and the interval between initial rodding and rod revision were analyzed. The longevity of the rods was evaluated by survival analysis. In the femur, dual Rush rods and Sheffield rods were equally effective and both were superior to a single Rush rod with reference to each of the outcome variables. The technique of dual Rush rodding was more demanding than telescoping rodding. In the tibia, a single Rush rod was as effective as a Sheffield telescoping rod. Based on our results, a single Rush rod would be the preferred implant in the tibia while in the femur, dual Rush rods or a Sheffield telescoping rod may be preferred.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)311-319
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Telescopes
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Tibia
Femur
Equipment and Supplies
Thigh
Survival Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Joseph, Benjamin ; Rebello, Gleeson ; Kant, B. Chandra. / The choice of intramedullary devices for the femur and the tibia in osteogenesis imperfecta. In: Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B. 2005 ; Vol. 14, No. 5. pp. 311-319.
@article{0e40fbabc0794cdbad761c66967abc2a,
title = "The choice of intramedullary devices for the femur and the tibia in osteogenesis imperfecta",
abstract = "The results of intramedullary rodding of 50 femoral and 25 tibial segments were analyzed retrospectively. The techniques of femoral rodding included single Rush rodding, dual Rush rodding and Sheffield telescoping rodding. Single Rush rods or Sheffield rods were used in the tibia. The frequencies of fractures following rodding and implant-related complications and the interval between initial rodding and rod revision were analyzed. The longevity of the rods was evaluated by survival analysis. In the femur, dual Rush rods and Sheffield rods were equally effective and both were superior to a single Rush rod with reference to each of the outcome variables. The technique of dual Rush rodding was more demanding than telescoping rodding. In the tibia, a single Rush rod was as effective as a Sheffield telescoping rod. Based on our results, a single Rush rod would be the preferred implant in the tibia while in the femur, dual Rush rods or a Sheffield telescoping rod may be preferred.",
author = "Benjamin Joseph and Gleeson Rebello and Kant, {B. Chandra}",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01202412-200509000-00001",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "311--319",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B",
issn = "1060-152X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

The choice of intramedullary devices for the femur and the tibia in osteogenesis imperfecta. / Joseph, Benjamin; Rebello, Gleeson; Kant, B. Chandra.

In: Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B, Vol. 14, No. 5, 01.01.2005, p. 311-319.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The choice of intramedullary devices for the femur and the tibia in osteogenesis imperfecta

AU - Joseph, Benjamin

AU - Rebello, Gleeson

AU - Kant, B. Chandra

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - The results of intramedullary rodding of 50 femoral and 25 tibial segments were analyzed retrospectively. The techniques of femoral rodding included single Rush rodding, dual Rush rodding and Sheffield telescoping rodding. Single Rush rods or Sheffield rods were used in the tibia. The frequencies of fractures following rodding and implant-related complications and the interval between initial rodding and rod revision were analyzed. The longevity of the rods was evaluated by survival analysis. In the femur, dual Rush rods and Sheffield rods were equally effective and both were superior to a single Rush rod with reference to each of the outcome variables. The technique of dual Rush rodding was more demanding than telescoping rodding. In the tibia, a single Rush rod was as effective as a Sheffield telescoping rod. Based on our results, a single Rush rod would be the preferred implant in the tibia while in the femur, dual Rush rods or a Sheffield telescoping rod may be preferred.

AB - The results of intramedullary rodding of 50 femoral and 25 tibial segments were analyzed retrospectively. The techniques of femoral rodding included single Rush rodding, dual Rush rodding and Sheffield telescoping rodding. Single Rush rods or Sheffield rods were used in the tibia. The frequencies of fractures following rodding and implant-related complications and the interval between initial rodding and rod revision were analyzed. The longevity of the rods was evaluated by survival analysis. In the femur, dual Rush rods and Sheffield rods were equally effective and both were superior to a single Rush rod with reference to each of the outcome variables. The technique of dual Rush rodding was more demanding than telescoping rodding. In the tibia, a single Rush rod was as effective as a Sheffield telescoping rod. Based on our results, a single Rush rod would be the preferred implant in the tibia while in the femur, dual Rush rods or a Sheffield telescoping rod may be preferred.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24744435738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24744435738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01202412-200509000-00001

DO - 10.1097/01202412-200509000-00001

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 311

EP - 319

JO - Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B

JF - Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics Part B

SN - 1060-152X

IS - 5

ER -