Literature DB >> 11147684

Prospective randomized study of reamed versus unreamed femoral intramedullary nailing: an assessment of procedures.

L E Shepherd1, C J Shean, I D Gelalis, J Lee, V S Carter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the procedure of unreamed femoral nailing is simpler, faster, and safer than reamed femoral intramedullary nailing.
DESIGN: Prospective randomized. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred femoral shaft fractures without significant concomitant injuries admitted to an academic Level 1 urban trauma center. INTERVENTION: Stabilization of the femoral shaft fracture using a reamed or unreamed technique. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The surgical time, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopy time, and perioperative complications were prospectively recorded.
RESULTS: One hundred patients with 100 femoral shaft fractures were correctly prospectively randomized to the study. Thirty-seven patients received reamed and sixty-three patients received unreamed nails. All nails were interlocked proximally and distally. The average surgical time for the reamed nail group was 138 minutes and for unreamed nail group was 108 minutes (p = 0.012). The estimated blood loss for the reamed nail group was 278 milliliters and for the unreamed nail group 186 milliliters (p = 0.034). Reamed intramedullary nailing required an average of 4.72 minutes, whereas unreamed nailing required 4.29 minutes of fluoroscopy time. Seven perioperative complications occurred in the reamed nail group and eighteen in the unreamed nail group. Two patients in the unreamed group required an early secondary procedure. Iatrogenic comminution of the fracture site occurred during three reamed and six unreamed intramedullary nailings. Reaming of the canal was required before the successful placement of three nails in the unreamed group because of canal/nail diameter mismatch.
CONCLUSIONS: Unreamed femoral intramedullary nailing involves fewer steps and is significantly faster with less intraoperative blood loss than reamed intramedullary nailing. The unreamed technique, however, was associated with a higher incidence of perioperative complications, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11147684     DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200101000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  7 in total

1.  Morphometric Study of the Atlas Vertebra using Manual Method.

Authors:  Shilpa N Gosavi; P Vatsalaswamy
Journal:  Malays Orthop J       Date:  2012-11

2.  Primary unreamed and unlocked intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures.

Authors:  Ejb Sié; Ad Kacou; A Traoré; Bl Séry; Y Lambin
Journal:  Malays Orthop J       Date:  2012-11

3.  Intramedullary nailing in femoral shaft fractures. Evaluation of a group of 101 cases.

Authors:  Claudio Iacobellis; Leonardo Strukul
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2008-03-01

4.  [Post-traumatic torsional differences and functional tests following antegrade or retrograde intramedullary nailing of the distal femoral diaphysis].

Authors:  D G Maier; R Reisig; P Keppler; L Kinzl; F Gebhard
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Does nail size or difference between canal and nail diameter influence likelihood of union or time to union of femoral shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing? A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Chiu-Yu Shih; Chew-Teng Kor; Cheng-Pu Hsieh; Chiu-Liang Chen; Yu-Cheng Lo
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 2.562

6.  The effectiveness of the antegrade reamed technique: the experience and complications from 415 traumatic femoral shaft fractures.

Authors:  Efthimios J Karadimas; George Papadimitriou; Gerasimos Theodoratos; Anastasios Papanikolaou; John Maris
Journal:  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr       Date:  2009-11-21

7.  Reamed versus unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of femoral fractures: A meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  A-Bing Li; Wei-Jiang Zhang; Wei-Jun Guo; Xin-Hua Wang; Hai-Ming Jin; You-Ming Zhao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.889

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.