This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vince, K. G.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vince, K. G.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 69, Issue 5 640-653, Copyright © 1987 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

Cross-union complicating fracture of the forearm. Part I: Adults

KG Vince and JE Miller

The cases of twenty-eight adults who had cross-union as a complication of fractures of the forearm were analyzed according to a new classification system. Four cross-unions were Type 1 (distal intra-articular part of the radius and ulna); fourteen, Type 2 (middle third or non-articular part of the distal third of the radius and ulna); and ten, Type 3 (proximal third of the radius and ulna). Type-1 cross-union occurred rarely, but it developed most commonly after closed reduction of a fracture. Types 2 and 3 typically followed severe local trauma and delayed open reduction. Bone fragments left in the interosseous space and bone screws that broached the opposite part of the cortex were common findings. Seventeen cross-unions were excised. Three of the four Type-1, none of the ten Type-2, and two of three Type-3 cross-unions recurred. The results after excision of Type-2 cross-unions in our series were far better than other results that have been previously reported.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JBJSHome page
S. Kamineni, N. G. Maritz, and B. F. Morrey
Proximal Radial Resection for Posttraumatic Radioulnar Synostosis: A New Technique to Improve Forearm Rotation
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2002; 84(5): 745 - 751.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J Sports MedHome page
P. D'Arco, M. Sitler, J. Kelly, R. Moyer, P. Marchetto, I. Kimura, and J. Ryan
Clinical, Functional, and Radiographic Assessments of the Conventional and Modified Boyd-Anderson Surgical Procedures for Repair of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures
Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1998; 26(2): 254 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
J. B. JUPITER and D. RING
Operative Treatment of Post-Traumatic Proximal Radioulnar Synostosis
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., February 1, 1998; 80(2): 248 - 57.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
JBJSHome page
R. R. RICHARDS
Current Concepts Review - Chronic Disorders of the Forearm
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 1996; 78(6): 916 - 30.
[Full Text]