Garner Matthew R, Bhat Suneel B, Khujanazarov Ilkhom, Flynn John M, Spiegel David
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
J Pediatr Orthop. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):11-6. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31820321ab.
The treatment of femoral shaft fractures in heavier children has been studied extensively, however, no study has directly compared elastic nail (TEN) and rigid locking nails (RLN) in this population. Our goal was to compare TEN with RLN in length-stable diaphyseal femur fractures in heavier children and adolescents (47 to 85 kg) using weight-matched cohorts.
We retrospectively reviewed records for length-stable diaphyseal femoral fractures treated with TEN or RLN over 8 years at our Level 1 Pediatric Trauma Center. Perioperative and follow-up data, including total charges for care, were recorded and radiographic images were reviewed. These data were used to create 2 cohorts having each patient in the TEN cohort matched to within 2 kg of the corresponding patient in the RLN cohort.
Fifteen patients from each cohort could be weight matched (TEN, 60.8 kg vs. RLN, 60.4 kg). The RNL cohort was older (15.4 vs. 13.5 y; P = 0.005). Time in operating room and estimated blood loss were greater in the RLN cohort: 158 versus 220 minutes (P = 0.003) and 42 versus 182 ml (P = 0.003), respectively. All patients had a full range of motion at the latest follow-up. Complications were observed in 6 of 15 TEN and 10 of 15 RNL (P = 0.14). Implant-related problems were more common in RLN patients, but this was not statistically significant (3 of 15 vs. 9 of 15; P = 0.06). In the TEN cohort, malunion and leg length discrepancy (> 2 cm) each occurred in a single patient (20 degrees varus, 2.3 cm shortening, respectively) compared with 0 of 15 in RLN (P = 0.48). Treatment with TEN resulted in a total charge of $742 more than RLN (P = 0.75).
In our weight-matched comparison, the use of TEN resulted in decreased time in operating room, estimated blood loss, and implant-related problems. Malunion and leg length discrepancy remain of concern when heavier patients are treated by TEN, but were not significantly increased relative to RNL in this study.
对于年龄稍大儿童股骨干骨折的治疗已有广泛研究,然而,尚无研究直接比较弹性髓内钉(TEN)与刚性锁定髓内钉(RLN)在该人群中的应用效果。我们的目标是在体重匹配的队列中,比较TEN与RLN治疗年龄稍大儿童及青少年(47至85千克)股骨干长度稳定型骨折的效果。
我们回顾性分析了在我们一级儿童创伤中心8年间采用TEN或RLN治疗的股骨干长度稳定型骨折患者的记录。记录围手术期及随访数据,包括总医疗费用,并复查影像学图像。利用这些数据创建两个队列,使TEN队列中的每位患者与RLN队列中相应患者的体重相差不超过2千克。
每个队列有15例患者实现体重匹配(TEN组60.8千克,RLN组60.4千克)。RLN队列患者年龄更大(15.4岁对13.5岁;P = 0.005)。RLN队列的手术时间和估计失血量更多:分别为158分钟对220分钟(P = 0.003)和42毫升对182毫升(P = 0.003)。所有患者在最后一次随访时均有全范围活动。15例TEN治疗患者中有6例出现并发症,15例RLN治疗患者中有10例出现并发症(P = 0.14)。与植入物相关的问题在RLN治疗患者中更常见,但差异无统计学意义(15例中有3例对15例中有9例;P = 0.06)。在TEN队列中,有1例患者出现畸形愈合和下肢长度差异>2厘米(分别为内翻20度、缩短2.3厘米),而RLN队列中15例患者均未出现(P = 0.48)。TEN治疗总的费用比RLN多742美元(P = 0.75)。
在我们的体重匹配比较中,使用TEN可减少手术时间、估计失血量以及与植入物相关的问题。对于年龄稍大患者采用TEN治疗时,畸形愈合和下肢长度差异仍值得关注,但在本研究中与RLN相比并无显著增加。