Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union?
Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of the non-union scoring system (NUSS) in predicting the result and in guiding the treatment by comparing the treatment methods applied to non-union patients we treat in our clinic with the treatment methods suggested by the NUSS. Methods: The study included 116...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Experimental biomedical research 2021-01, Vol.4 (4), p.262 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 262 |
| container_title | Experimental biomedical research |
| container_volume | 4 |
| creator | Karsli, Burcin Sezgin Bahadir Tekin Kilincoglu, Volkan |
| description | Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of the non-union scoring system (NUSS) in predicting the result and in guiding the treatment by comparing the treatment methods applied to non-union patients we treat in our clinic with the treatment methods suggested by the NUSS. Methods: The study included 116 patients, who were diagnosed with long bone (femur, tibia and humerus) non-union and treated in our clinic. Of the 116 patients with non-union, 48 had femur (41.38 %), 39 had tibia (33.62%) and 29 had humerus (25%) non-union. The patient scores were calculated according to the NUSS criteria. The patients were divided into four groups according to their total scores. There were 34 patients in the first group (0-25 points), 49 patients in the second group (26-50 points), 30 patients in the third group (51-75 points) and three patients in the fourth group (76-100 points). Results: Union that was achieved in 79 (68.10%) of all patients was detected in 97.05% of the patients in the first group, 83.67% in the second group, and 16.66 % in the third group. Amputation, arthroplasty and arthrodesis were applied to three patients in the fourth group. While union rate was 100 % in the femur and tibia in the first group, it was 90% in the humerus. The union rates were 85.71% in the humerus, 75% in the femur and 100% in the tibia in the second group. They were 20 % in the humerus, 15.38% in the femur and 16.66% in the tibia in the third group. The number of patients treated with the treatment proposed by the NUSS: 100% in the group 1, 83.67% in the group 2, 20% in the group 3 and 100% in the group 4. The risk of non-union in those who were not treated according to the NUSS recommendations was 28 times higher than that of others. Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that more frequent use of the NUSS procedure in non-union treatment planning may increase treatment success. In addition, NUSS can provide information about the treatment process of non-unions. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.30714/10.30714/j-ebr.2021471920 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2578107878</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2578107878</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_25781078783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNzL0KwjAUBeAgCIr6DkEXHVpv0tTEycEfnFzUWWK5tS2aaJIOvr1FRFenc-B8HEKGDOIEJBPTb6kiPLuYA2dCsjmHFunyGVPRTKSiQwbeVwDAlRTAoEsOK4uehgKpsSaqTWkN9Zl1pblQ__QBb3S8O-73E6rzHLPwpsGhDjc0ger73VmdFdTmv4NFn7RzffU4-GSPjDbrw3IbNfhRow-nytbONNOJp1IxkEqq5D_1ArtUR14</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2578107878</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union?</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Karsli, Burcin ; Sezgin Bahadir Tekin ; Kilincoglu, Volkan</creator><creatorcontrib>Karsli, Burcin ; Sezgin Bahadir Tekin ; Kilincoglu, Volkan</creatorcontrib><description>Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of the non-union scoring system (NUSS) in predicting the result and in guiding the treatment by comparing the treatment methods applied to non-union patients we treat in our clinic with the treatment methods suggested by the NUSS. Methods: The study included 116 patients, who were diagnosed with long bone (femur, tibia and humerus) non-union and treated in our clinic. Of the 116 patients with non-union, 48 had femur (41.38 %), 39 had tibia (33.62%) and 29 had humerus (25%) non-union. The patient scores were calculated according to the NUSS criteria. The patients were divided into four groups according to their total scores. There were 34 patients in the first group (0-25 points), 49 patients in the second group (26-50 points), 30 patients in the third group (51-75 points) and three patients in the fourth group (76-100 points). Results: Union that was achieved in 79 (68.10%) of all patients was detected in 97.05% of the patients in the first group, 83.67% in the second group, and 16.66 % in the third group. Amputation, arthroplasty and arthrodesis were applied to three patients in the fourth group. While union rate was 100 % in the femur and tibia in the first group, it was 90% in the humerus. The union rates were 85.71% in the humerus, 75% in the femur and 100% in the tibia in the second group. They were 20 % in the humerus, 15.38% in the femur and 16.66% in the tibia in the third group. The number of patients treated with the treatment proposed by the NUSS: 100% in the group 1, 83.67% in the group 2, 20% in the group 3 and 100% in the group 4. The risk of non-union in those who were not treated according to the NUSS recommendations was 28 times higher than that of others. Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that more frequent use of the NUSS procedure in non-union treatment planning may increase treatment success. In addition, NUSS can provide information about the treatment process of non-unions.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2618-6454</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.30714/10.30714/j-ebr.2021471920</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bolu: Experimental Biomedical Research</publisher><subject>Amputation ; Arthrodesis ; Blood tests ; Classification ; Diabetes ; Femur ; Fractures ; Humerus ; Infections ; Information processing ; Joint surgery ; Long bone ; Nonunion ; Orthopedics ; Patients ; Pediatrics ; Tibia</subject><ispartof>Experimental biomedical research, 2021-01, Vol.4 (4), p.262</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Karsli, Burcin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sezgin Bahadir Tekin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilincoglu, Volkan</creatorcontrib><title>Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union?</title><title>Experimental biomedical research</title><description>Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of the non-union scoring system (NUSS) in predicting the result and in guiding the treatment by comparing the treatment methods applied to non-union patients we treat in our clinic with the treatment methods suggested by the NUSS. Methods: The study included 116 patients, who were diagnosed with long bone (femur, tibia and humerus) non-union and treated in our clinic. Of the 116 patients with non-union, 48 had femur (41.38 %), 39 had tibia (33.62%) and 29 had humerus (25%) non-union. The patient scores were calculated according to the NUSS criteria. The patients were divided into four groups according to their total scores. There were 34 patients in the first group (0-25 points), 49 patients in the second group (26-50 points), 30 patients in the third group (51-75 points) and three patients in the fourth group (76-100 points). Results: Union that was achieved in 79 (68.10%) of all patients was detected in 97.05% of the patients in the first group, 83.67% in the second group, and 16.66 % in the third group. Amputation, arthroplasty and arthrodesis were applied to three patients in the fourth group. While union rate was 100 % in the femur and tibia in the first group, it was 90% in the humerus. The union rates were 85.71% in the humerus, 75% in the femur and 100% in the tibia in the second group. They were 20 % in the humerus, 15.38% in the femur and 16.66% in the tibia in the third group. The number of patients treated with the treatment proposed by the NUSS: 100% in the group 1, 83.67% in the group 2, 20% in the group 3 and 100% in the group 4. The risk of non-union in those who were not treated according to the NUSS recommendations was 28 times higher than that of others. Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that more frequent use of the NUSS procedure in non-union treatment planning may increase treatment success. In addition, NUSS can provide information about the treatment process of non-unions.</description><subject>Amputation</subject><subject>Arthrodesis</subject><subject>Blood tests</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Femur</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Humerus</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Joint surgery</subject><subject>Long bone</subject><subject>Nonunion</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Tibia</subject><issn>2618-6454</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNzL0KwjAUBeAgCIr6DkEXHVpv0tTEycEfnFzUWWK5tS2aaJIOvr1FRFenc-B8HEKGDOIEJBPTb6kiPLuYA2dCsjmHFunyGVPRTKSiQwbeVwDAlRTAoEsOK4uehgKpsSaqTWkN9Zl1pblQ__QBb3S8O-73E6rzHLPwpsGhDjc0ger73VmdFdTmv4NFn7RzffU4-GSPjDbrw3IbNfhRow-nytbONNOJp1IxkEqq5D_1ArtUR14</recordid><startdate>20210101</startdate><enddate>20210101</enddate><creator>Karsli, Burcin</creator><creator>Sezgin Bahadir Tekin</creator><creator>Kilincoglu, Volkan</creator><general>Experimental Biomedical Research</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210101</creationdate><title>Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union?</title><author>Karsli, Burcin ; Sezgin Bahadir Tekin ; Kilincoglu, Volkan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_25781078783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Amputation</topic><topic>Arthrodesis</topic><topic>Blood tests</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Femur</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Humerus</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Joint surgery</topic><topic>Long bone</topic><topic>Nonunion</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Tibia</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Karsli, Burcin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sezgin Bahadir Tekin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilincoglu, Volkan</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Experimental biomedical research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Karsli, Burcin</au><au>Sezgin Bahadir Tekin</au><au>Kilincoglu, Volkan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union?</atitle><jtitle>Experimental biomedical research</jtitle><date>2021-01-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>262</spage><pages>262-</pages><eissn>2618-6454</eissn><abstract>Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of the non-union scoring system (NUSS) in predicting the result and in guiding the treatment by comparing the treatment methods applied to non-union patients we treat in our clinic with the treatment methods suggested by the NUSS. Methods: The study included 116 patients, who were diagnosed with long bone (femur, tibia and humerus) non-union and treated in our clinic. Of the 116 patients with non-union, 48 had femur (41.38 %), 39 had tibia (33.62%) and 29 had humerus (25%) non-union. The patient scores were calculated according to the NUSS criteria. The patients were divided into four groups according to their total scores. There were 34 patients in the first group (0-25 points), 49 patients in the second group (26-50 points), 30 patients in the third group (51-75 points) and three patients in the fourth group (76-100 points). Results: Union that was achieved in 79 (68.10%) of all patients was detected in 97.05% of the patients in the first group, 83.67% in the second group, and 16.66 % in the third group. Amputation, arthroplasty and arthrodesis were applied to three patients in the fourth group. While union rate was 100 % in the femur and tibia in the first group, it was 90% in the humerus. The union rates were 85.71% in the humerus, 75% in the femur and 100% in the tibia in the second group. They were 20 % in the humerus, 15.38% in the femur and 16.66% in the tibia in the third group. The number of patients treated with the treatment proposed by the NUSS: 100% in the group 1, 83.67% in the group 2, 20% in the group 3 and 100% in the group 4. The risk of non-union in those who were not treated according to the NUSS recommendations was 28 times higher than that of others. Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that more frequent use of the NUSS procedure in non-union treatment planning may increase treatment success. In addition, NUSS can provide information about the treatment process of non-unions.</abstract><cop>Bolu</cop><pub>Experimental Biomedical Research</pub><doi>10.30714/10.30714/j-ebr.2021471920</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | EISSN: 2618-6454 |
| ispartof | Experimental biomedical research, 2021-01, Vol.4 (4), p.262 |
| issn | 2618-6454 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2578107878 |
| source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Amputation Arthrodesis Blood tests Classification Diabetes Femur Fractures Humerus Infections Information processing Joint surgery Long bone Nonunion Orthopedics Patients Pediatrics Tibia |
| title | Does the non-union scoring system (NUSS) affect the treatment approach of non-union? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T07%3A55%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20the%20non-union%20scoring%20system%20(NUSS)%20affect%20the%20treatment%20approach%20of%20non-union?&rft.jtitle=Experimental%20biomedical%20research&rft.au=Karsli,%20Burcin&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=262&rft.pages=262-&rft.eissn=2618-6454&rft_id=info:doi/10.30714/10.30714/j-ebr.2021471920&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2578107878%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2578107878&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |