Skip to main content
Log in

Was macht eine gute Osteosynthese aus?

What constitutes a good osteosynthesis?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Was macht eine „gute Osteosynthese“ aus? Obwohl die Frage trivial erscheint, ergeben sich bei genauerer Betrachtung doch mannigfaltige Faktoren, welche einen Einfluss auf die Frakturheilung haben, sodass sie sich letztendlich doch nicht so einfach beantworten lässt. Bereits bei der Anamnese und initialen Diagnostik werden die ersten Weichen gestellt. Eine adäquate Analyse der Fraktur mit einem schlüssigen präoperativen Konzept zur Stabilisierung unter den wissenschaftlich aktuellsten Erkenntnissen und eine nachfolgend adäquate Umsetzung der Planung im Operationssaal machen den Erfolg einer Osteosynthese und damit die „gute Osteosynthese“ aus. Dabei spielen digitale Unterstützungen eine immer wesentlichere Rolle. Diese Übersichtsarbeit setzt sich intensiv mit dem Thema auseinander und fasst die wichtigsten Elemente der notwendigen Kaskade zusammen.

Abstract

What constitutes a “good osteosynthesis”? Although the question seems trivial, on closer inspection there are manifold influencing factors that affect fracture healing, so that this question is ultimately not that easy to answer. The first steps are already set with taking the patient history and initial diagnostics. An adequate analysis of the fracture with a coherent preoperative concept for stabilization based on the latest scientific findings and a subsequent adequate implementation of the planning in the operating room make the success of an osteosynthesis and thus a “good osteosynthesis”. Digital support is playing an increasingly important role in this field. This review article deals with the topic in depth and summarizes the most important elements of the necessary cascade.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Böhler L (1951) Die Techniken der Knochenbruchbehandlung, 13. Aufl. Verlag Wilhelm Maudrich, Wien, München, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kasha S, Yalamanchili RK (2020) Management of subtrochanteric fractures by nail osteosynthesis: a review of tips and tricks. Int Orthop 44(4):645–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Piétu G, Ehlinger M (2017) Minimally invasive internal fixation of distal femur fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(1S):S161–S169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tomás-Hernández J (2016) High-energy pilon fractures management: state of the art. EFORT Open Rev 1(10):354–361

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Stapleton JJ, Zgonis T (2014) Surgical treatment of intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 31(4):539–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anglen JO et al (2008) Technical tips in fracture care: fractures of the hip. Instr Course Lect 57:17–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Driscoll SW (2004) Supracondylar fractures of the elbow: open reduction, internal fixation. Hand Clin 20(4):465–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tscherne H, Oestern HJ (1982) A new classification of soft-tissue damage in open and closed fractures (author’s transl). Unfallheilkunde 85(3):111–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT (1976) Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58(4):453–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mittlmeier T, Wichelhaus A (2017) Treatment strategy and planning for pilon fractures. Unfallchirurg 120(8):640–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krettek C, Bachmann S (2015) Pilon fractures. Part 1: Diagnostics, treatment strategies and approaches. Chirurg 86(1):87–101 (quiz 102–104)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kraus TM et al (2016) Pearls and pitfalls for the treatment of tibial head fractures. Orthopade 45(1):24–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keel MJ et al (2012) The Pararectus approach for anterior intrapelvic management of acetabular fractures: an anatomical study and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(3):405–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mardian S et al (2017) Ventral approaches to the acetabulum. Trauma Berufskrankh 19(3):127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mardian S et al (2015) Fixation of acetabular fractures via the ilioinguinal versus pararectus approach: a direct comparison. Bone Joint J 97-B(9):1271–1278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mardian S et al (2017) Acetabular fractures in an advanced age—current knowledge and treatment options. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 84(4):241–246

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mardian S, Schwabe P, Schaser KD (2015) Fractures of the tibial shaft. Z Orthop Unfall 153(1):99–117 (quiz 118–9)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Müller TS, Sommer C (2019) Reduction techniques for minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis. Unfallchirurg 122(2):103–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Horn C et al (2011) Combination of interfragmentary screws and locking plates in distal meta-diaphyseal fractures of the tibia: a retrospective, single-centre pilot study. Injury 42(10):1031–1037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Plecko M et al (2012) The influence of different osteosynthesis configurations with locking compression plates (LCP) on stability and fracture healing after an oblique 45 degrees angle osteotomy. Injury 43(7):1041–1051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mardian S et al (2015) Working length of locking plates determines interfragmentary movement in distal femur fractures under physiological loading. Clin Biomech 30(4):391–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mardian S et al (2015) Interfragmentary lag screw fixation in locking plate constructs increases stiffness in simple fracture patterns. Clin Biomech 30(8):814–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mardian S et al (2019) Locking plate constructs benefit from interfragmentary lag screw fixation with decreased shear movements and more predictable fracture gap motion in simple fracture patterns. Clin Biomech 70:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lodde MF et al (2021) Union rates and functional outcome of double plating of the femur: systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03767-6

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Märdian.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

S. Märdian, S. Tsitsilonis, S. Ahmad, U. Culemann, G. Duda, M. Heyland und U. Stöckle geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Redaktion

M. J. Raschke, Münster

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Märdian, S., Tsitsilonis, S., Ahmad, S. et al. Was macht eine gute Osteosynthese aus?. Chirurg 92, 863–872 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-021-01494-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-021-01494-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation