Prophylactic titanium elastic nailing (TEN) following femoral lengthening (Lengthening then rodding) with one or two nails reduces the risk for secondary interventions after regenerate fractures: a cohort study in monolateral vs. bilateral lengthening procedures

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Robert Rödl²  Björn Vogt²  Georg Gosheger¹  Ulrich Elsner¹  Frank Schiedel² 

[1] Department of General Orthopaedics and Tumour Orthopaedics, Münster University Hospital, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Münster, D-48149, Germany;Department of Children’s Orthopaedics, Deformity Correction and Foot Surgery, Münster University Hospital, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Münster, D-48149, Germany

关键词: Callus pattern;    TENs nailing after lengthening;    Lengthening then rodding;    Regenerate fracture;    Limb lengthening;   

Others  :  1129384
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-302

 received in 2013-04-24, accepted in 2013-10-17,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Femoral fracture rates of up to 30% have been reported following lengthening procedures using fixators. “Lengthening then rodding” uses one or two titanium elastic nails (TENs) for prophylactic intramedullary nailing to reduce this complication. The aim of the study was to decide if usage of only one TEN is safe or has it a higher risk of getting a fracture? And we asked if there is a difference between patients with monolateral or bilateral lengthening procedures according to their fracture rate?

Methods

One or two TENs were implanted in two groups of patients (monolateral and bilateral) after femoral lengthening procedures. The regenerate quality was classified using the Li system and fractures were categorized using the Simpson and Kenwright classification. The follow-up period was at least 1 year after removal of the frame.

Results

Sixty-seven patients with 101 femoral lengthening procedures were included in 2007–2011. Group A included 34 patients with bilateral lengthening due to congenital short stature. Group B consisted of 33 patients with congenital disorders with leg length discrepancies. Seven fractures in six patients were seen in group A and five fractures in group B. One patient had residual shortening of 1 cm, and 11 fractures healed without relevant deviation (< 5°) or shortening (< 5 mm). A soft-tissue infection in one patient led to early removal of one TEN.

Conclusions

Fractures occurred in both groups of patients in total in 12 of the 101 cases (12%). The rate of secondary interventions was markedly reduced. Usage of one or two TENs did not influence the fracture rate.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Schiedel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Paley D: Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990, 250:81-104.
• [2]Ganger R, Radler C, Chomiak J, Handlbauer A, Grill F, Dungl P: Complications after femoral lengthening with ring fixators in congenital femoral deficiency. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2011, 78:61-66. Czech
• [3]Blondel B, Launay F, Glard Y, Jacopin S, Jouve JL, Bollini G: Limb lengthening and deformity correction in children using hexapodal external fixation: preliminary results for 36 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009, 95:425-430.
• [4]Noonan KJ, Leyes M, Forriol F, Cañadell J: Distraction osteogenesis of the lower extremity with use of monolateral external fixation. A study of two hundred and sixty-one femora and tibiae. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998, 80:793-806.
• [5]Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Joslin CC, Hardy JR, Cunningham JL: Quantification of fracture healing from radiographs using the maximum callus index. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:1986-1991.
• [6]Nakamura K, Matsushita T, Mamada K, et al.: Changes of callus diameter during axial loading and after fixator removal in leg lengthening. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1998, 117:464-467.
• [7]Orbay JL, Frankel VH, Finkle JE, Kummer FJ: Canine leg lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. a biomechanical, radiologic, and morphologic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992, 278:265-273.
• [8]Vade A, Eissenstat R: Radiographic features of bone lengthening procedures. Radiology 1990, 174:531-537.
• [9]Minty I, Maffulli N, Hughes TH, Shaw DG, Fixsen JA: Radiographic features of limb lengthening in children. Acta Radiol 1994, 35:555-559.
• [10]Donnan LT, Saleh M, Rigby AS, McAndrew A: Radiographic assessment of bone formation in tibia during distraction osteogenesis. J Pediatr Orthop 2002, 22:645-651.
• [11]Hamanishi C, Yasuwaki Y, Kikuchi H, Tanaka S, Tamura K: Classification of the callus in limb lengthening. Radiographic study of 35 limbs. Acta Orthop Scand 1992, 63:430-433.
• [12]Li R, Saleh M, Yang L, Coulton L: Radiographic classification of osteogenesis during bone distraction. J Orthop Res 2006, 24:339-347.
• [13]Devmurari KN, Song HR, Modi HN, Venkatesh KP, Ju KS, Song SH: Callus features of regenerate fracture cases in femoral lengthening in achondroplasia. Skeletal Radiol 2010, 39:897-903.
• [14]Saran N, Hamdy RC: DEXA as a predictor of fixator removal in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466:2955-2961.
• [15]Simpson AH, Kenwright J: Fracture after distraction osteogenesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000, 82:659-665.
• [16]O’Carrigan T, Paley D, Herzenberg J: Fractures. In Limb lengthening and reconstruction. Edited by Rozbruch SR, Ilizarov S. New York: Informa Health Care; 2008:675-679.
• [17]De Bastiani G, Aldegheri R, Renzi-Brivio L, Trivella G: Limb lengthening by callus distraction (callotasis). J Pediatr Orthop 1987, 7:129-134.
• [18]Paley D: Current techniques of limb lengthening. J Pediatr Orthop 1988, 8:73-92.
• [19]Nayagam S: Femoral lengthening with a rail external fixator: tips and tricks. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2010, 5:137-144.
• [20]Eralp L, Kocaoglu M, Bilen FE, Balci HI, Toker B, Ahmad K: A review of problems, obstacles and sequelae encountered during femoral lengthening: uniplanar versus circular external fixator. Acta Orthop Belg 2010, 76:628-635.
• [21]Rozbruch SR, Kleinman D, Fragomen AT, Ilizarov S: Limb lengthening and then insertion of an intramedullary nail: a case-matched comparison. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466:2923-2932.
• [22]Oh CW, Song HR, Kim JW, Choi JW, Min WK, Park BC: Limb lengthening with a submuscular locking plate. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91:1394-1399.
• [23]Shemshaki HR, Mousavi H, Salehi G, Eshaghi MA: Titanium elastic nailing versus hip spica cast in treatment of femoral-shaft fractures in children. J Orthop Traumatol 2011, 12:45-48.
• [24]Flynn JM, Luedtke LM, Ganley TJ, et al.: Comparison of titanium elastic nails with traction and a spica cast to treat femoral fractures in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86-A:770-777.
• [25]Kojimoto H, Yasui N, Goto T, Matsuda S, Shimomura Y: Bone lengthening in rabbits by callus distraction. the role of periosteum and endosteum. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1988, 70:543-549.
• [26]Höntzsch D, Weller S, Engels C, Kaiserauer S: Change in the procedure from external fixator to intramedullary nailing osteosynthesis of the femur and tibia. Aktuelle Traumatol 1993, 23(1):21-35. German
• [27]Nowotarski PJ, Turen CH, Brumback RJ, Scarboro JM: Conversion of external fixation to intramedullary nailing for fractures of the shaft of the femur in multiply injured patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000, 82:781-788.
• [28]Slongo TF: Complications and failures of the ESIN technique. Injury 2005, 36(Suppl 1):A78-A85.
• [29]Herzenberg JE, Branfoot T, Paley D, Violante FH: Femoral nailing to treat fractures after lengthening for congenital femoral deficiency in young children. J Pediatr Orthop B 2010, 19:150-154.
• [30]Lampasi M, Launay F, Jouve JL, Bollini G: Femoral lengthening over elastic stable intramedullary nailing in children using the monolateral external fixator. Chir Organi Mov 2009, 93:57-64.