9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review of dynamization vs exchange nailing for delayed/non-union femoral fractures

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          AIM

          To analyze the literature on efficacy of dynamamization vs exchange nailing in treatment of delayed and non-union femur fractures.

          METHODS

          Ultimately, 31 peer-reviewed articles with 644 exchanged nailing patients and 131 dynamization patients were identified and analyzed. The following key words were inputted in different combinations in order to search the field of publications in its entirety: “non-union”, “delayed union”, “ununited”, “femur fracture”, “femoral fracture”, “exchange nailing”, “dynaiz(s)ation”, “secondary nailing”, “dynamic”, “static”, and “nail revision”. The initial search yielded over 150 results, and was refined based on the inclusion criteria: Only studies reporting on humans, non-unions and delayed unions, and the usage of exchange nailing and/or dynamization as a secondary treatment after failed IM nailing. The resulting 66 articles were obtained through online journal access. The results were filtered further based on the exclusion criteria: No articles that failed to report overall union rates, differentiate between success rates of their reported techniques, or articles that analyzed less than 5 patients.

          RESULTS

          Exchange nailing lead to fracture union in 84.785% of patients compared to the 66.412% of dynamization with statistically comparable durations until union (5.193 ± 2.310 mo and 4.769 ± 1.986 mo respectively). Dynamically locking exchange nails resulted in an average union time of 5.208 ± 2.475 mo compared to 5.149 ± 2.366 mo ( P = 0.8682) in statically locked exchange nails. The overall union rate of the two procedures, statically and dynamically locked exchange nailing yielded union rates of 84.259% and 82.381% respectively. Therefore, there was no significant difference between the different locking methods of exchange nailing for union rate or time to union at a significance value of P < 0.05. The analysis showed exchange nailing to be the more successful choice in the treatment of femoral non-unions in respect to its higher success rate (491/567 EN, 24/57 dynam, P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference between the success rates of the two procedures for delayed union fractures (25/27 EN, 45/55 dynam, P = 0.3299). Nevertheless, dynamization was more efficient in the treatment of delayed unions (at rates comparable to exchange nailing) than in the treatment of non-unions.

          CONCLUSION

          In conclusion, after examination of factors, dynamization is recommended treatment of delayed femur fractures, while exchange nailing is the treatment of choice for non-unions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Femoral nonunion: risk factors and treatment options.

          Despite advances in surgical technique, fracture fixation alternatives, and adjuncts to healing, femoral nonunion continues to be a significant clinical problem. Femoral fractures may fail to unite because of the severity of the injury, damage to the surrounding soft tissues, inadequate initial fixation, and demographic characteristics of the patient, including nicotine use, advanced age, and medical comorbidities. Femoral nonunion is a functional and economical challenge for the patient, as well as a treatment dilemma for the surgeon. Surgeons should understand the various treatment alternatives and their role in achieving the goals of deformity correction, infection management, and optimization of muscle strength and rehabilitation. Used appropriately, nail dynamization, exchange nailing, and plate osteosynthesis can help minimize pain and disability by promoting osseous union. A review of the potential risk factors and treatment alternatives should provide insight into the etiology and required treatment of femoral nonunion.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reamed intramedullary nailing of the femur: 551 cases.

            The care of the patient with the fractured femur entails a multiple surgical team approach. Healing of the fracture and expediency in the operating room are both important. We sought to determine the results of the treatment of fractures of the femoral shaft with interlocking femoral nails inserted with closed techniques, and to compare the outcomes of fractures nailed by using a fracture table with those stabilized with the leg draped free on a radiolucent table. Eight hundred eighty-two consecutive patients with fractures of the femoral shaft treated with a first-generation intramedullary nail at the authors' institution during the years 1986 to 1996 were identified. Five hundred fifty-one fractures in 515 patients met the inclusion criteria. Treatment with an intramedullary nail led to a union rate of 98.9%. There were six infections, all occurring in closed fractures. Thirty-eight percent of the fractures had hardware removed, most commonly because of pain. One nail and 13 locking bolts broke. Four hundred eighteen fractures had adequate radiographs available to assess fracture alignment. No fracture healed with more than 10 degrees of angulation in either plane. Forty-four fractures healed with more than 5 degrees of angulation. A distal third fracture was found to be associated with an increased incidence of malalignment. There were no differences in outcomes between fractures stabilized with or without a fracture table. Reamed intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures results in a low rate of nonunion, malunion, infection, and hardware failure. There is no difference in the outcomes of fractures treated with and without the use of a fracture table. This is particularly useful in the patient with multiple injuries for whom transfer to a fracture table may not be time effective.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Exchange nailing of ununited fractures.

              Exchange nailing is most appropriate for a nonunion without substantial bone loss. There is no clear consensus regarding the use of exchange nailing in the presence of active, purulent infection. The exchange nail should be at least 1 mm larger in diameter than the nail being removed, and it has been recommended that it be up to 4 mm larger when the nail being removed was greatly undersized. Canal reaming should progress until osseous tissue is observed in the reaming flutes. Exchange nailing is an excellent choice for aseptic nonunions of noncomminuted diaphyseal femoral fractures, with union rates reported to range from 72% to 100%. On the basis of the available literature, exchange nailing cannot be recommended for distal femoral nonunions at this time. Exchange nailing is an excellent choice for aseptic nonunions of noncomminuted diaphyseal tibial fractures, with union rates reported to range from 76% to 96%. On the basis of the available literature, exchange nailing is generally not indicated for humeral nonunions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                World J Orthop
                WJO
                World Journal of Orthopedics
                Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
                2218-5836
                18 July 2018
                18 July 2018
                : 9
                : 7
                : 92-99
                Affiliations
                College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43614, United States
                College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43614, United States
                College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43614, United States
                Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH 43614, United States
                Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH 43614, United States. jiayong.liu@ 123456utoledo.edu
                Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH 43614, United States
                Author notes

                Author contributions: Vaughn JE, Shah RV and Samman T performed the research and analyzed the data and wrote the paper; Stirton J, Liu J and Ebraheim NA provided structure for the article as well as edited and revised the paper.

                Correspondence to: Jiayong Liu, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, 3065 Arlington Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614, United States. jiayong.liu@ 123456utoledo.edu

                Telephone: +1-800-5865336 Fax: +1-419-3835362

                Article
                jWJO.v9.i7.pg92
                10.5312/wjo.v9.i7.92
                6068728
                0484b229-9a49-40fc-a4cd-78666fd4419c
                ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

                This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.

                History
                : 3 February 2018
                : 24 April 2018
                : 30 May 2018
                Categories
                Systematic Reviews

                non-union,delayed union,dynamization,femoral fracture,exchange nailing

                Comments

                Comment on this article