reyhaneh javadi

One of the most important complications of bone fractures is nonunion. This research aimed at comparing the effect of exchange nailing and plate augmentation on complications after surgery and the time to achieve desired outcomes.

This descriptive-analytical study was conducted in 12 femoral shaft nonunion cases treated operatively in 2011-2018 (eight patients were managed with plate augmentation and four patients were treated with exchange nailing). Demographic characteristics of the patients, type of fracture and type of surgery were recorded. A year after the surgery, anteroposterior and lateral view profiles were prepared from all patients and the extent of bone fusion was evaluated by orthopedic surgen.

Four patients (33.33%) underwent intraosseous nail replacement surgery and eight (66.67%) underwent plate augmentation surgery. Two patients (16.67%) developed infections and five (41.67%) had a short limb complication. The average limb shortness in these patients was 1.10±0.22 cm. The average duration of union after discharge was lower in patients with plate augmentation than those with replacement of the intramedullary nail.

In current study, faster uninon achieved, so, augmentation plating could be a good choice in patients with femoral shaft nonunion.

In this article، we studied one of the most important reform periods in Qajar Era (1785 -1925). Analyzing the arguments of cons during the reforms of Sepahsalar (the prime minister of Naser al-Din Shah)، we used a Rational Choice Theory and conducted a narrative analysis by dividing the internal oppositions to three groups: clergymen، courtiers، and government officials. Analyzing the arguments of these groups، the common arguments include «Neglecting the opposition''s position»، «the financial performance of the reformists»، and «endangerment of the kingdom of Nasser al-Din Shah». «Incompatible of reformist performances with Islam»، «the financial corruption of the reformist»، «the heirs of power''s concern of losing the power»، «the entrance of foreigners»، «the loss of territorial integrity»، «colonization of Iran»، «neglecting the traditions»، «the concern of cultural mixing» and «the personal manner of the reformist himself» are the arguments which the two groups had offered them. «Endangerment of the Imperial dynasty»، «endangerment of the Monarchical system»، «homeland security disturbance»، «the reformist''s political dependency on Russia and Britain»، and «neglecting the citizen''s right» are the arguments which were supported only by one of these opposition groups.

Analyzing the arguments of opponents of Amir Kabir’sreforms، the authors of this article used theRational Choice approach as a general theory in historical sociology to generate acausal narrative to explain the reasons for internal opposition to Amir Kabir’s reforms. For this purpose، the reform opponentswere divided into four groups: clergymen، courtiers، governors، and the women of the Harem. Rational Choice Theory، in which the individual (here the reform opponents) is causal agent، and the instrumental rationality he uses (which here led to their opposition to reforms) is causal mechanism، was used to clarify the rational process of their opposition to reforms. Then، the arguments of the four groups were analyzed، and the first group was omitted based on John Stuart Mill''s comparative method. The common arguments were finally recognized using Mill’s method of agreement and methodofconcomitantvariation. They were negligence ofopponents’ position and social class، violation of the citizen''s rights، and possible reduction of royal power. These arguments show that the opponents of Amir Kabir''s reforms were more concerned with their individual and class benefits.

The following article aims to study one of the reformative periods (1859-1862) in Nasseri's Era which is mostly neglected. Applying Rational Choice Theory I appealed to a narrative analysis of the arguments of cons by dividing the internal oppositions to three groups: clergymen, courtiers, and government officials. After analyzing the arguments of these three groups (based on John Stuart Mill's comparative method) there were common arguments among those groups who had discussed on: "endangerment of the kingdom of Nasser al-Din Shah" and "neglecting the traditions". "Incompatible of reformist performances with Islam", "a not religious reformist", "endangerment of the Imperial dynasty", "homeland security disturbance", "neglecting the opposition's position", "the concern of cultural mixing" and "The personal manner of the reformist himself" are the arguments which two groups are mentioned them. Also one of these groups refered to the arguments like "the economic performance of the reformist", "the loss of territorial integrity", "colonization of Iran", "the reformist's political dependency on Russia", and "neglecting the citizen's rights".

In the present paper، to analyze the role of Harem women in the reforms of Nasseri’s era، using the rational choice theory as one of the general theories in historical sociology، we described the reasons which these women offered as the cons of the reforms in three reformative period: 1848–1851 (the reforms of Mirza Taqi Khan Amir Kabir); 1859–1862 (the reforms of Nasser al-Din Shah); and 1871–1873 (the reforms of MirzaHossein Khan Sepahsalar). This paper criticized the dominant approach in historical narratives and the analysis that introduce harem women as sexual objects that were simply plaything of the courtiers، governors and clergymen by using their body for seducing. Focusing on two Naser al-Din Shah’s harem women، Mahd-e Olia (1805- 1873) andAnis al-Doleh (1842- 1896)، this paper emphasize on the rational choice of this actors and the reasons they are offered to criticize the reforms. This shows that their reasonings are not much different from the other groups who are known as the cons of reforms in Nasseri''s era.