Literature DB >> 11265005

Retrograde versus antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures.

W M Ricci1, C Bellabarba, B Evanoff, D Herscovici, T DiPasquale, R Sanders.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare union rates and complications of retrograde intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures with those of antegrade intramedullary nailing.
DESIGN: Retrospective.
SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-three consecutive adult patients with 293 fractures of the femoral shaft who underwent stabilization with antegrade or retrograde inserted femoral nails were studied. There were 140 retrograde nails and 153 antegrade nails. Twelve fractures in twelve patients were excluded (three in patients who died early in the postoperative period, three in patients because of early amputation, four in patients who were paraplegic, and two in patients who fractured through abnormal bone owing to metastatic carcinoma), leaving 134 fractures treated with retrograde nails and 147 treated with antegrade nails. One hundred four femurs treated with retrograde nails (Group R) and ninety-four femurs treated with antegrade nails (Group A) had sufficient follow-up and served as the two study groups. The average clinical follow-up was twenty-three months (range 6 to 66 months) for Group R and twenty-three months (range 5 to 64 months) for Group A. Both groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, number of open fractures, degree of comminution, mode of interlocking (i.e., static or dynamic), and nail diameter (p > 0.05). INTERVENTION: Retrograde intramedullary nails were inserted through the intercondylar notch of the knee, and antegrade nails were inserted through the pirformis fossa using standard techniques. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Union, delayed union, nonunion, malunion, and complication rates.
RESULTS: After the index procedure there were no significant differences in healing or incidence of malunion between Group R and Group A (p > 0.05). Healing after the index procedure occurred in ninety-one (88 percent) of the femurs in Group R and in eighty-four (89 percent) of the femurs in Group A. In Group R, there were seven delayed unions (7 percent) and six nonunions (6 percent). In Group A, there were four delayed unions (4 percent) and six nonunions (6 percent). Healing ultimately occurred in 100 (96 percent) femurs from Group R and in ninety-three (99 percent) femurs from Group A. In Group R, there were eleven malunions (11 percent), and in Group A, there were twelve malunions (13 percent). When patients with ipsilateral knee injuries were excluded, the incidence of knee pain was significantly greater for Group R patients (36 percent) than for Group A patients (9 percent) (p < 0.001). When patients with ipsilateral hip injuries were excluded, the incidence of hip pain was significantly greater for Group A patients (10 percent) than for Group R patients (4 percent) (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde and antegrade nailing techniques provided similar results in union and malunion rates. There were more complications related to the knee after retrograde nailing and more complications related to the hip after antegrade nailing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11265005     DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200103000-00003

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


  42 in total

1.  [Fracture of the medial femoral condyle as a complication of retrograde femoral nail removal].

Authors:  K Grimme; T Gosling; H C Pape; P Schandelmaier; C Krettek
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  [Management of metaphyseal nonunions of the femur with retrograde nailing].

Authors:  R Biber; H-W Stedtfeld
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  Femur fractures in professional athletes: a case series.

Authors:  Robby Sikka; Gary Fetzer; Thomas Hunkele; Eric Sugarman; Joel Boyd
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Decreased muscle strength is associated with impaired long-term functional outcome after intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fracture.

Authors:  P Larsen; R Elsoe; T Graven-Nielsen; U Laessoe; S Rasmussen
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 3.693

5.  Decortication and osteotomy for the correction of multiplanar deformity in the treatment of malunion in adult diaphyseal femoral deformity: a case series and technique description.

Authors:  S Middleton; R W Walker; M Norton
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-06-28

6.  A comparison of anterior knee pain, kneeling pain and functional outcomes in suprapatellar versus infrapatellar tibial nailing.

Authors:  Andreas Fontalis; Simon Weil; Michael Williamson; James Houston; Tamer Ads; Alex Trompeter
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-01-08

7.  Risk of septic knee following retrograde intramedullary nailing of open and closed femur fractures.

Authors:  Jason J Halvorson; Marc Barnett; Ben Jackson; John P Birkedal
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Anterograde removal of broken femoral nails without opening the nonunion site: a new technique.

Authors:  Henrique Antônio Berwanger de Amorim Cabrita; Eduardo Angeli Malavolta; Otávio Vilhena Reis Teixeira; Nei Botter Montenegro; Fernando Aires Duarte; Rames Mattar
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.365

9.  [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

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.