Höntzsch D, Weller S, Engels C, Kaiserauer S
Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Tübingen.
Aktuelle Traumatol. 1993 Jul;23 Suppl 1:21-35.
Shaft fractures of femur and tibia can be treated successfully by intramedullary nailing. In recent years the use of interlocking nails widened the indication for nailing fractures of the proximal and distal bone and more difficult fractures. There are still limits in polytrauma patients, chain fractures with or without participation of joints and in fractures with severe soft tissue injury (open or closed). In these cases primary treatment with external fixation has proved worthwhile. The main problems and risks of primary nailing osteosynthesis occur in the early phase of treatment, whereas complications in external fixation are more likely to occur in later phases of treatment. In changing from external fixation to intramedullary nailing one can see the advantages of both methods. In the literature only small studies have been made mostly with patient groups below 50 in number. The change of method was rarely standardised and the time period between procedures was either late (more than 3 weeks) or arbitrary. The advantages and disadvantages as well as the risk in changing methods are controversial. In a 2-year prospective study from August 1989 to July 1991, patients with II and III degree open and closed femur and tibia fractures as well as trauma patients with fractures were initially treated by external fixation. A change of method from external fixation to intramedullary nailing was performed at the earliest possible time under exact criteria. 61 femur and 106 tibia fractures were accordingly treated and followed. In comparison to early studies there were no differences in bone healing or in functional results. The infection rate in tibia fractures was 1.9% (2 of 106); no infection was seen in femur fractures. The contamination rate at the time of method change was substantially higher at 14%. The difference between contamination and infection rate can be explained by experience in the technique of nailing, considering biological aspects (no or little reaming), the standardized change of method and the prophylactic use of antibiotics. In a follow-up of additional 37 femur and 58 tibia fractures that were treated accordingly, a total infection rate of 1.9% was achieved (2% in femur fractures [n = 98], 1.8% in tibia fractures [n = 164], 1.9% total [n = 262]). In femur and tibia fractures with open or closed soft tissue damage and in multiple trauma patients the treatment with initial stabilisation by external fixation and secondary change to intramedullary nailing can be recommended under certain conditions.
股骨和胫骨骨干骨折可通过髓内钉固定成功治疗。近年来,带锁髓内钉的应用扩大了近端和远端骨折以及更复杂骨折的髓内钉固定适应证。在多发伤患者、累及或不累及关节的连锁骨折以及伴有严重软组织损伤(开放或闭合)的骨折中,仍存在一定限制。在这些情况下,一期采用外固定治疗已被证明是值得的。一期髓内钉接骨术的主要问题和风险发生在治疗早期,而外固定的并发症更可能发生在治疗后期。从外固定转换为髓内钉固定可以看到两种方法的优点。文献中仅有少量研究,大多研究对象数量在50例以下。方法的转换很少标准化,手术间隔时间要么较晚(超过3周),要么随意。方法转换的优缺点以及风险存在争议。在1989年8月至1991年7月为期2年的前瞻性研究中,II度和III度开放性和闭合性股骨和胫骨骨折患者以及伴有骨折的创伤患者最初采用外固定治疗。在严格标准下尽早进行从外固定到髓内钉固定的方法转换。据此对61例股骨骨折和106例胫骨骨折进行了治疗并随访。与早期研究相比,在骨愈合或功能结果方面没有差异。胫骨骨折的感染率为1.9%(106例中有2例);股骨骨折未见感染。方法转换时的污染率显著更高,为14%。考虑到生物学因素(不扩髓或轻度扩髓)、标准化的方法转换以及预防性使用抗生素等髓内钉技术经验,污染率和感染率之间的差异可以得到解释。在对另外37例股骨骨折和58例胫骨骨折进行相应治疗的随访中,总感染率为1.9%(股骨骨折为2%[n = 98],胫骨骨折为1.8%[n = 164],总体为1.9%[n = 262])。对于伴有开放或闭合软组织损伤的股骨和胫骨骨折以及多发伤患者,在某些条件下可推荐一期采用外固定稳定,二期转换为髓内钉固定的治疗方法。