<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>02086nam a22001817a 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">D0001J000083</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">DOH</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20210219141956.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">210219b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
    <subfield code="a">Distal radius fractures : </subfield>
    <subfield code="b">relationship between radiologic parameters and functional outcome /</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">Niraj Ranjeet, Emmanuel P. Estrella</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">INTRODUCTION: The advent of pedicle screws which provide distraction and derotation has led to higher correction of major curves. Newer methods have been devised to evaluate preoperative coronal flexibility, including lateral-bending (LB), push-prone (PP) and fulcrum-bending (FB) radiographs. Documentation of a consistent radiographic method predictive of correction rate has not been established.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most predictive radiographic method for evaluating spine flexibility and correction by comparing the correction rate (CR), flexibility rate (FR) and correction index (CI) of the Cobb's angle using the different radiographic methods.

METHODS: Preoperative radiographs of 20 patients who underwent spinal fusion for adolescent scoliosis were obtained using the LB, PP, and FB method and compared with postoperative radiographs.


RESULTS: Comparing the mean Cobb angles using the different methods to that of postoperative standing showed that only the FB method is not significantly different from the latter (p=0.669). There was significant difference between the Cobb's angle measured on the LB and PP and that measured on postoperative standing (p=0.043, p=0.008). Comparing the mean flexibility of the different methods with the mean CR also showed that the mean FR of LB (p=0.007) and PP (p=0.00013) were significantly different from the CR while that of FB is not significantly different from the CR (p=0.687).</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="580" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">In: Acta Medica Philippina, 2012 vol 46 (2) pages:  55-59</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="2">
    <subfield code="a">Radius Fractures</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Ranjeet, Niraj  </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Estrella, Emmanuel P. </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://actamedicaphilippina.upm.edu.ph/index.php/acta/article/view/2170/1585</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">JA</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2993</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2993</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">nlm</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">DOHCL</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">DOHCL</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">ElectronicRes</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2021-02-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="l">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">J000083</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">D0001J000083</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2021-02-19 00:00:00</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2021-02-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">JA</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
