PMC2729425_01
Preoperative crush injury right forearm.
CRM2009-568142.001.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.001.jpg
fig1
Intraoperative external and intramedullary fixations.
CRM2009-568142.002.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.002.jpg
fig2
The orthopaedic timing consisted of a debridement of the wound and reduction of the fractures with external and intramedullary fixation (Figure 2), followed by a further debridement and washout of the wound with a pulsed lavage system, performed by the authors.
LD flap with anastomosis of the vessels.
CRM2009-568142.003.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.003.jpg
fig3
Postoperative at 2 weeks.
CRM2009-568142.004.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.004.jpg
fig4
The additional use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy allowed a successful healing of this complex severely contaminated wound in two weeks time (Figures 4  and 5). 
Postoperative at 2 weeks.
CRM2009-568142.005.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.005.jpg
fig5
The additional use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy allowed a successful healing of this complex severely contaminated wound in two weeks time (Figures 4  and 5). 
X-ray showing a further displacement of the fracture fragment of the radius, with ulnar deviation of the wrist.
CRM2009-568142.006.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.006.jpg
fig6
X-ray showing a reduced fracture with plates and screws.
CRM2009-568142.007.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.007.jpg
fig7
The wrist was fixed in arthrodesis (Figure 7).
Followup at 1 year with 95% recovery of the flexor tendons.
CRM2009-568142.008.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.008.jpg
fig8
The range of extension motion was probably due to the vicarious action of the inteosseous muscles (Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Followup at 1 year with 40% recovery of the extensor tendons.
CRM2009-568142.009.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.009.jpg
fig9
The range of extension motion was probably due to the vicarious action of the inteosseous muscles (Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Patient able to write.
CRM2009-568142.010.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.010.jpg
fig10
The range of extension motion was probably due to the vicarious action of the inteosseous muscles (Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Patient able to carry a glass.
CRM2009-568142.011.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.011.jpg
fig11
The range of extension motion was probably due to the vicarious action of the inteosseous muscles (Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Patient showing a good strength.
CRM2009-568142.012.jpg
PMC2729425_01_CRM2009-568142.012.jpg
fig12