Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to make clear how difficult it is to remove osteosynthesis materials afterwards, so surgeons will think twice before inserting intramedullary nails. Also it offers an alternative methode to remove the Wichita Fusion Nail after arthrodesis has become.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional | Conventional technique for Wichita nail extraction | ||
| New | Proposed technique for Wichita nail extraction |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed technique for removal of the Wichita Fusion Nail | Procedure |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Operation technique | Was the arthrodesis site left intact? How was the Nail removed? Time for operation? | first 4 months postop |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Mobility | 1 year postop | |
| Pain measurement following the Visual Analogue Scale | 1 year postop | |
| Major complications after removal |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
All patients who had to have their Wichita Fusion Nail extracted
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UZ Leuven | Pellenberg | 3212 | Belgium |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Amputation? Infection? Wound problems? |
| first 2 years postop |