000			03029cam a2200349 a 4500
003			EG-GiCUC
005			20250223032124.0
008			181127s2018 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d
040			_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC
041	0		_aeng
049			_aDeposite
097			_aPh.D
099			_aCai01.11.25.Ph.D.2018.Sa.C
100	0		_aSami Mohamed Moselhy
245	1	0	_aComparative study between double plating and y plate in management of intercondylar humeral fracture / _cSami Mohamed Moselhy ; Supervised Hasan Magdy Elbarbary , Ahmad Kholeif , Abo Bakr Zein
246	1	5	_aفي علاج كسور اسفل عظمة العضد بين اللقمتين Y دراسه للمقارنة بين استخدام شريحتين و استخدام شريحة حرف
260			_aCairo : _bSami Mohamed Moselhy , _c2018
300			_a83 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm
502			_aThesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
520			_aBackground : Intercondylar humeral fracture is one of the commonest & challenging fractures of young adult and counts for about 30% of all elbow fractures. Aim: Evaluation of two groups of patients ,group A managed by by double plates and group B by Y plateStudy design : Prospective study Materials and Methods :This study was conducted on 44 patients ,Group A 22 pt Group B 22 pt . the study included patients aged between 16-59 years with intercondylar humeral fracture type C according to AO classification while patients with compound fractures, osteoporotic bone, pathological fractures and patients aging less than 16 years and more than 59 years were excluded. Follow up at 3and 6months Results : Range of movement after 3 & 6 months was 84±31 and 98±35 respectively in group A which was relatively high compared to 48±25 and 71±21 respectively in group B . MAYO Elbow Performance Score after 3 & 6 months was 71±21 and 82±23 respectively in group A which was relatively high compared to 48±14 and 73±12 respectively in group B. After 3 months of follow up, MEPS grade showed that the majority was good in group A representing 54.5% while poor in group B representing 76.2% Similarly, the grade after 6 months of follow up was excellent in group A representing 45.5% while good in group B representing 42.9%. CONCLUSION From a clinical and stastical perspective , there is no significant differences were observed between the group A and group B in terms of union time and complications ,however there is high statistical difference between group A& group B regarding range of motion and Mayo Elbow Performance Score
530			_aIssued also as CD
653		4	_aDouble plate
653		4	_aIntercondylar humeral fracture
653		4	_aY plate
700	0		_aAbobakr Zein , _eSupervisor
700	0		_aAhmad Kholeif , _eSupervisor
700	0		_aHasan Magdy Elbarbary , _eSupervisor
856			_uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf
905			_aEnas _eCataloger
905			_aNazla _eRevisor
942			_2ddc _cTH
999			_c68782 _d68782