External fixator versus elastic stable intramedullary nail for treatment of metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fractures of the pediatric distal femur: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND

Several methods have been used for the treatment of pediatric distal femoral fractures, such as elastic stable intramedullary nail (ESIN), external fixator (EF) and plate osteosynthesis, but there has been no consensus about the optimal method. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome between EF and ESIN techniques used in metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) fractures of the pediatric distal femur.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed operatively treated MDJ fractures of pediatric distal femur between January 2015 and January 2022. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics, injury and data of radiography. All of the patients were divided into EF and ESIN groups according to the operation techniques. Malalignment was defined as more than 5 degrees of angular deformity in either plane. Clinical outcomes were measured by Flynn scoring system.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were included in this study, among which, 23 were treated with EF, and 15 with ESIN. The mean follow-up time was 18 months (12-24 months). At the final follow-up, all of the fractures were healed. Although there were no statistical differences between the two groups in demographic data, length of stay, estimated blood loss (EBL), rate of open reduction, time to fracture healing and Flynn score, the EF was superior to ESIN in operative time, fluoroscopic exposure and time to partial weight-bearing. The EF group had a significantly higher rate of skin irritation, while the ESIN had a significantly higher rate of malalignment.

CONCLUSION

EF and ESIN are both effective methods in the treatment of MDJ fractures of the pediatric distal femur. ESIN is associated with lower rates of skin irritation. However, EF technique has the advantages of shorter operative time, reduced fluoroscopic exposure, and shorter time to partial weight-bearing, as well as lower incidence of malalignment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.