Literature DB >> 17237933

Retention of flexible intramedullary nails following treatment of pediatric femur fractures.

Saam Morshed1, Marcie Humphrey, Luis A Corrales, Meredith Millett, Scott A Hoffinger.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Flexible intramedullary nails are commonly used for the treatment of diaphyseal femur fractures in children. Although, their removal after fracture healing is advocated by some, there are no definitive studies to support the routine removal of these implants. The purpose of this study is to determine the natural history of children with diaphyseal fractures of the femur treated with flexible intramedullary nails and no scheduled nail removal.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective case series of 24 consecutive children treated at our tertiary pediatric referral center for closed diaphyseal femur fractures. All children had intramedullary fixation with flexible titanium nails. The main outcomes measured are fracture healing, incidence of hardware removal, and pain assessment with the use of a follow-up telephone questionnaire.
RESULTS: All the patients healed their fractures. The average follow-up time was 3.6 years. A total of six patients had removal of nails for any reason at an average of 15 months post-injury. The survivorship free of revision due to persistent pain was 72% at 5 years of follow-up. Twenty-two patients were reached by phone for a final follow-up questionnaire. There was no difference in reports of residual symptoms of pain among those who did have nails removed and those who did not (P = 0.626).
CONCLUSIONS: Among children with femur fractures treated with flexible intramedullary nailing without scheduled implant removal, about a quarter may ultimately require a second procedure for nail removal due to persistent discomfort. Moreover, up to half of patients can have residual non-debilitating pain at 2-5 years post-injury regardless of presence or absence of the implant. Whether this is a previously unrecognized adverse outcome of this injury or treatment approach, or due to routinely leaving nails in will have to be assessed in future controlled trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17237933     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-007-0286-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  7 in total

1.  Implant removal in children.

Authors:  P P Schmittenbecher
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 2.  [Implant removal after intramedullary osteosyntheses. Literature review, technical details, and tips and tricks].

Authors:  C Krettek; P Mommsen
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  Removal of orthopaedic implants: indications, outcome and economic implications.

Authors:  I I Onche; O E Osagie; S INuhu
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2011-01

4.  Osteosynthesis of pediatric femoral shaft fractures with flexible intramedullary nailing-experience from developing world.

Authors:  Tabish Tahir Kirmani; Najmul Huda; Gaurav Mishra
Journal:  Int J Burns Trauma       Date:  2020-08-15

5.  Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature.

Authors:  D I Vos; M H J Verhofstad
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 3.693

6.  Implant removal associated complications in children with limb fractures due to trauma.

Authors:  E A Gorter; D I Vos; C F M Sier; I B Schipper
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 3.693

7.  Flexible intramedullary nailing in paediatric femoral fractures. A report of 73 cases.

Authors:  Ramprakash Lohiya; Vikas Bachhal; Usman Khan; Deepak Kumar; Vishwapriya Vijayvargiya; Sohan S Sankhala; Rakesh Bhargava; Nipun Jindal
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 2.359

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.