EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 4 (2018) SICOT-J, 4 (2018) 55 References
Open Access
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 4, 2018
Article Number 55
Number of page(s) 7
Section Hip
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2018050
Published online 30 November 2018
  1. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ (1992) Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int 2, 285–289. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Haonga BT, Eliezer EN, Makupa JE, Shearer DS, Liu MB, Wu H (2016) SIGN hip construct: achieving hip fracture fixation without using as image intensifier. East African Orthop J 10, 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brunner LC, Eshilian-Oates L, Kuo TY (2009) Hip fractures in adults. Am Fam Physician 67, 537–542. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jensen JS, Tøndevold E, Mossing N (1978) Unstable trochanteric fractures treated with the sliding screw-plate system: a biomechanical study of unstable trochanteric fractures III. Acta Orthop 49, 392–397. [Google Scholar]
  5. Madsen JE, Næss L, Aune AK, Alho A, Ekeland A, Strømsøe K (1998) Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the gamma nail and compression hip screw. J Orthop Trauma 12, 241–248. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pervez H, Parker MJ (2001) Results of the long Gamma nail for complex proximal femoral fractures. Injury 32, 704–707. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bewes P (1999) Third world trauma. Trauma 1, 341–350. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Zirkle LG, Shearer D, Roth JS (2009) SIGN hip construct surgical technique and early clinical experience. Tech Ortho 24, 258–264. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Zirkle LG (2008) Injuries in developing countries: how can we help? The role of orthopaedic surgeons. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466, 2443–2450. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clough JF, Zirkle LG, Schmitt RJ (2010) The role of SIGN in the development of a global orthopaedic trauma database. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468, 2592–2597. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Phillips J, Zirkle LG, Gosselin RA (2007) Achieving locked intramedullary fixation of long bone fractures: technology for the developing world. Int Orthop 36, 2007–2013. [Google Scholar]
  12. Thomson Haonga B, Zirkle LG (2015) The SIGN nail: factors in a successful device for low-resource settings. J Orthop Trauma 29, 37–39. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zirkle LG, Shahab F, Shahabuddin (2016) Interlocked intramedullary nail without fluoroscopy. Ortho Clin North Am 47, 57–66. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, Malik H, Donnachie N (2009) The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 40, 428–432. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke DV (1987) The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg 69, 873–880. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Morshed S (2014) Current options for determining fracture union. Adv Med 2014, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  17. StataCorp (2013) Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. [Google Scholar]
  18. Baumgaertner MR (2003) Intertrochanteric hip fractures. In: Skeletal Trauma: Basic Science, Management, and Reconstruction, 3rd ed. Browner BD JJ, Levine AM, Trafton PG, Editors. Philadelphia, Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mavrogenis AF, Panagopoulos GN, Megaloikonomos PD, et al. (2016) Complications after hip nailing for fractures. Orthopedics 39, e108–e116. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Young S, Lie SA, Hallan G, Zirkle LG, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI (2013) Risk factors for infection after 46,113 intramedullary nail operations in low- and middle-income countries. World J Surg 37, 349–355. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Malik MH, Harwood P, Diggle P, Khan SA (2004) Factors affecting rates of infection and nonunion in intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86, 556–560. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.