. Birth fractures and epiphyseal dislocations . Fio. 141.—Case 3. At ten months the roentgenogram still revealed evidenceof the birth dislocation of the lower epiphysis. The beveling off of the shaft ofthe humerus was more striking than ever, partly because of the increase inthe length of the bone by growth at the lower epiphyseal line. New bone wasseen developing at one of the ossification centers in the lower epiphysis. Thisfact, together with the increase in the length of the bone at its lower end,would indicate that posterior dislocation of the epiphysis at birth neitherblights nor destroy
. Birth fractures and epiphyseal dislocations . Fio. 141.—Case 3. At ten months the roentgenogram still revealed evidenceof the birth dislocation of the lower epiphysis. The beveling off of the shaft ofthe humerus was more striking than ever, partly because of the increase inthe length of the bone by growth at the lower epiphyseal line. New bone wasseen developing at one of the ossification centers in the lower epiphysis. Thisfact, together with the increase in the length of the bone at its lower end,would indicate that posterior dislocation of the epiphysis at birth neitherblights nor destroys the very important epiphyseal Fig. 142.—Deformity in a child of four, thirteen months after a supra-condylar fracture of the humerus, with backward displacement of thelower fragment. The displacement had never been satisfactorily corrected, andthe deformity corresponded, in a manner, with a dislocation backward ofthe lower humeral epiphysis. The picture is shown because of the similarityof the late deformity in cases of supracondylar fracture and of dislocationbackward of the lower epiphysis when replacement of the displaced parthas not been accomplished. 129
Size: 1384px × 1805px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, booksubjec, booksubjectfractures
