Cage Jason M, Black Sheena R, Wimberly Robert L, Cook Jay B, Gheen William T, Jo ChanHee, Riccio Anthony I
*Tripler Army Medical Center, Orthopedic Surgery Service, Honolulu, HI †Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center ‡Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children and Children's Medical Center of Dallas, Dallas, TX.
J Pediatr Orthop. 2017 Jul/Aug;37(5):299-304. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000667.
Multiple techniques for flexible intramedullary nailing (FIMN) of pediatric femur fractures have been described. To our knowledge, no study has compared combined medial-lateral (ML) entry versus all-lateral (AL) entry retrograde nailing. This study compares surgical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and complication rates between these 2 techniques.
A retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients treated by retrograde, dual FIMN of femur fractures was performed from 2005 to 2012. Demographics and operative data were recorded. Radiographs were analyzed for fracture pattern, fracture location, percent canal fill by the nails, as well as shortening and angulation at the time of osseous union. Rates of symptomatic implants and their removal were noted. Data were compared between patients treated with medial and lateral entry (ML group) nailing and those treated with all-lateral entry (AL group) nailing using the Student t test and correlation statistics.
Of the 244 children with femoral shaft fractures treated with retrograde FIMN using Ender stainless steel nails, 156 were in the ML group and 88 were in the AL group. There were no statistical differences in sex (74% vs. 82% males), age (8.0 vs. 8.6 y), weight (29.4 vs. 31.1 kg), or fracture pattern between the 2 groups. The average total anesthesia time was less in the AL group (133 vs. 103 min) (P<0.0001). There was no difference between the techniques in shortening (3.9 vs. 3.0 mm), coronal angulation (2.9 vs. 2.6 degrees), or sagittal angulation (3.3 vs. 2.7 degrees) at union. In the AL group, there was a correlation between canal fill and reduced shortening at union. No differences were found in the presence or degree of varus alignment, procurvatum deformity, or recurvatum angulation between the constructs. There were 5 malunions in the AL group and 9 malunions in the ML group (5.7% vs. 5.8%, P=1). The incidence of having a healed femur fracture with >10 degrees of valgus was higher in the AL group (0% vs. 3.4%) (P=0.04). There were no differences between the groups in the rate of symptomatic implant removal or surgical complications.
The AL entry technique for FIMN of pediatric femur fractures is 30 minutes faster without worse final fracture alignment, additional complications, or increased rates of symptomatic implants. When using the AL technique, specific attention should be paid to percentage of canal fill and ensuring that the fracture is not reduced in a valgus position.
Level III-therapeutic.
已有多种用于小儿股骨干骨折的弹性髓内钉固定(FIMN)技术被描述。据我们所知,尚无研究比较联合内外侧(ML)入路与全外侧(AL)入路逆行髓内钉固定术。本研究比较了这两种技术的手术效果、影像学结果及并发症发生率。
对2005年至2012年采用逆行双弹性髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的连续系列患者进行回顾性研究。记录人口统计学和手术数据。分析X线片以了解骨折类型、骨折部位、髓内钉的髓腔填充百分比,以及骨愈合时的短缩和成角情况。记录有症状植入物的发生率及其取出情况。采用Student t检验和相关统计方法比较采用内外侧入路(ML组)和全外侧入路(AL组)固定的患者的数据。
在244例采用Ender不锈钢钉逆行弹性髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的儿童中,156例在ML组,88例在AL组。两组在性别(男性分别为74%和82%)、年龄(分别为8.0岁和8.6岁)、体重(分别为29.4 kg和31.1 kg)或骨折类型方面无统计学差异。AL组的平均总麻醉时间较短(分别为133分钟和103分钟)(P<0.0001)。两种技术在骨愈合时的短缩(分别为3.9 mm和3.0 mm)、冠状面成角(分别为2.9°和2.6°)或矢状面成角(分别为3.3°和2.7°)方面无差异。在AL组,髓腔填充与骨愈合时短缩减少之间存在相关性。两组在内翻畸形、前凸畸形或后凸成角的存在或程度方面未发现差异。AL组有5例畸形愈合,ML组有9例畸形愈合(分别为5.7%和5.8%,P = 1)。AL组股骨骨折愈合时外翻>10°的发生率较高(分别为0%和3.4%)(P = 0.04)。两组在有症状植入物取出率或手术并发症方面无差异。
小儿股骨干骨折弹性髓内钉固定的AL入路技术快30分钟,且最终骨折对线不差,无额外并发症,有症状植入物发生率也未增加。采用AL技术时,应特别注意髓腔填充百分比,并确保骨折不在外翻位复位。
三级治疗性。