Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Jun;33(6):e229-e233. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001450.
(1) Identify factors that predict blocking screw placement in the treatment of a distal femur fracture with retrograde nail fixation and (2) determine whether acceptable alignment and stability were achieved in fractures that received blocking screws.
Retrospective Comparative Study.
Level I Trauma Center.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Between 2011 and 2017, we identified 84 patients with distal third femur fractures treated with a retrograde femoral nail. Data were analyzed according to those who did (BLOCK, n = 30) and did not (NO BLOCK, n = 54) receive blocking screws. Patients in both groups were treated by orthopaedic trauma surgeons; postoperative weight-bearing radiographs were obtained of every patient.
Fixation using a retrograde femoral nail with or without blocking screws. Blocking screws were placed at the discretion of the treating surgeon to reduce malaligned fractures or improve stability.
(1) Demographics, radiographic apparent bone gap (RABG), space available for the nail (SAFN), and distal segment length [as a ratio of bicondylar width (BCW)]; and (2) post-operative alignment and stability (change in alignment over time).
Patients treated with blocking screws had a higher body mass index (BMI) (BLOCK: 29.0, NO BLOCK 25.7, P = 0.03). In addition, the BLOCK group had larger RABGs (BLOCK: 8.2 mm, NO BLOCK: 3.6 mm, P = 0.02), more SAFN (BLOCK: 51.4 mm, NO BLOCK: 39.8 mm, P = 0.02), and shorter distal segments (BLOCK: 1.7 × BCW, NO BLOCK: 2.0 × BCW, P = 0.01). In a multivariable logistic regression, the combination of these factors was significantly predictive of blocking screw placement with a large effect size (R = 0.36, P < 0.01). A distal segment length ≤ ×2 BCW was 77% sensitive for blocking screw placement, and a BMI ≥25 kg/m was 70% sensitive. Negative predictive values for blocking screw placement were distal segment length > ×2 BCW (79%), BMI <25 kg/m (77%), RABG <4 mm (76%), and SAFN <50 mm (71%). Patients that received blocking screws had acceptable postoperative alignment and stability, similar to fractures that did not receive blocking screws (P > 0.05).
This retrospective study of distal femur fractures treated with retrograde nails identified several factors that can be used to predict when blocking screw placement may be useful for increasing stability and maintaining alignment in distal third femur fractures treated with retrograde IM nails. Patients treated with blocking screws had a higher BMI, greater cortical bone loss, more SAFN, and shorter distal segments. There was no difference in postoperative alignment or stability between the 2 groups.
Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
(1) 确定预测逆行股骨钉固定治疗股骨远端骨折时使用阻挡螺钉的因素;(2) 确定是否在使用阻挡螺钉的骨折中获得了可接受的对线和稳定性。
回顾性比较研究。
一级创伤中心。
患者/参与者:2011 年至 2017 年间,我们共确定了 84 例采用逆行股骨钉治疗的股骨远端三分之一骨折患者。根据是否使用(BLOCK,n=30)和未使用(NO BLOCK,n=54)阻挡螺钉对数据进行了分析。两组患者均由骨科创伤外科医生治疗;每位患者均获得术后负重位 X 线片。
使用逆行股骨钉固定,可加用或不加用阻挡螺钉。阻挡螺钉的放置由治疗外科医生决定,以减少对线不良的骨折或提高稳定性。
(1) 患者的一般资料、影像学明显骨间隙(RABG)、螺钉可用空间(SAFN)和远端节段长度[作为双髁宽度(BCW)的比值];以及 (2) 术后对线和稳定性(随时间变化的对线变化)。
使用阻挡螺钉治疗的患者 BMI 更高(BLOCK:29.0,NO BLOCK:25.7,P=0.03)。此外,BLOCK 组的 RABG 更大(BLOCK:8.2mm,NO BLOCK:3.6mm,P=0.02),SAFN 更大(BLOCK:51.4mm,NO BLOCK:39.8mm,P=0.02),远端节段更短(BLOCK:1.7×BCW,NO BLOCK:2.0×BCW,P=0.01)。多变量逻辑回归显示,这些因素的组合对线阻挡螺钉放置具有显著的预测作用,效应大小较大(R=0.36,P<0.01)。远端节段长度≤2×BCW 对阻挡螺钉放置的敏感性为 77%,BMI≥25kg/m 的敏感性为 70%。阻挡螺钉放置的阴性预测值为远端节段长度>2×BCW(79%)、BMI<25kg/m(77%)、RABG<4mm(76%)和 SAFN<50mm(71%)。接受阻挡螺钉治疗的患者术后对线和稳定性可接受,与未接受阻挡螺钉治疗的骨折相似(P>0.05)。
本研究回顾性分析了采用逆行钉治疗的股骨远端骨折,确定了一些因素,这些因素可用于预测在哪些情况下使用阻挡螺钉可能有助于增加稳定性并保持逆行 IM 钉治疗股骨远端三分之一骨折的对线。使用阻挡螺钉治疗的患者 BMI 更高,皮质骨丢失更多,SAFN 更大,远端节段更短。两组患者术后对线和稳定性无差异。
预后 III 级。欲了解完整的证据水平描述,请参见作者说明。