Literature DB >> 17805018

Results of femoral intramedullary nailing in patients who are obese versus those who are not obese: a prospective multicenter comparison study.

Michael C Tucker1, John R Schwappach, Ross K Leighton, Kevin Coupe, William M Ricci.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Antegrade femoral nailing through a piriformis fossa starting point in patients who are obese has been demonstrated to be problematic. Retrograde femoral nailing therefore has been advocated in this patient population, but little data exist to support such a recommendation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare antegrade and retrograde femoral nailing technique in both patients who are and are not obese.
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized, internal review board (IRB)-approved study.
SETTING: Four Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS: Patients (151) with a femoral shaft fracture (OTA 32) treated with intramedullary nailing were studied. Thirty-two with a body mass index (BMI) of >or=30 comprised the obese group (OG), and 119 with a BMI of <30 comprised the nonobese group (NOG). Antegrade nailing was performed in 15 patients from the OG and 84 from the NOG. Retrograde nailing was performed in 17 patients from the OG and 35 from the NOG. INTERVENTION: Reamed intramedullary nailing of a femoral shaft fracture. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and fracture characteristics, operative time, fluoroscopy time, healing, complications, and functional outcome based on the lower extremity measure (LEM) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Antegrade technique in the OG was associated with a 52% greater average operative time (94 minutes) compared with antegrade nailing in the NOG (62 minutes; P < 0.003). For retrograde nailing technique, there was no difference in the average operative time between the OG (67 minutes) and NOG (62 minutes; P = 0.51). Antegrade technique in the OG was associated with a 79% greater average radiation exposure time (247 seconds) compared with antegrade nailing in the NOG (135 seconds; P < 0.03). For retrograde nailing technique, average fluoroscopy time was similar between the OG (76 seconds) and the NOG (63 seconds; P = 0.44). Within the OG, antegrade nailing required 40% greater average operative time (94 minutes versus 67 minutes, P < 0.02) and more than 3 times more average fluoroscopy time (242 seconds versus 76 seconds, P < 0.002) than retrograde nailing. Thirty-eight patients from the original cohort were not available for follow-up. Of the 113 patients followed (average 9 months, range: 4 to 25 months), healing complications occurred similarly between the 2 groups, with 1 nonunion and 2 delayed unions in the OG (12%), and 3 nonunions and 9 delayed unions in the NOG (14%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence, in the form of decreased operative and radiation exposure times, to support the use of retrograde nailing technique for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures in patients who are obese. Also, antegrade nailing was found to require significantly more operative and radiation exposure time in the patient who is obese as opposed to the patients who is not obese. Although having similar baseline functional scores, patients who are obese recovered at a slower rate and more incompletely than patients who are not obese.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17805018     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31813347ac

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


  20 in total

1.  Distal Radius Fractures: Does Obesity Affect Fracture Pattern, Treatment, and Functional Outcomes?

Authors:  Michael D Montague; Jesse T Lewis; Obadah Moushmoush; Jaiyoung Ryu
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2018-01-07

2.  Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of intra-articular fractures of distal femur: A multicentre study.

Authors:  Kaosheng Lu; Jixin Zhang; Jiaxiang Cheng; Haibo Liu; Chunyan Yang; Lichuan Yin; Hongbing Wang; Xiaojun You; Qiaoge Qu
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-12-26       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  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

4.  Healing, nonunion, and re-operation after internal fixation of diaphyseal and distal femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Riikka E Koso; Cristina Terhoeve; R Grant Steen; Robert Zura
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  [Femoral nailing using a helical nail shape (LFN(®))].

Authors:  J R Rether; D Höntzsch
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  Subtrochanteric femoral fracture during trochanteric nailing for the treatment of femoral shaft fracture.

Authors:  Ho Hyun Yun; Chi Hun Oh; Ju Won Yi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2013-08-20

7.  Risk factors of deep infection in operatively treated pilon fractures (AO/OTA: 43).

Authors:  Cesar S Molina; Daniel J Stinner; Andrew R Fras; Jason M Evans
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-02-21

8.  Factors affecting the closed reduction of diaphyseal fractures of the femur.

Authors:  Ahmet Ozgur Yildirim; Ozdamar Fuad Oken; Yusuf Alper Katı; Murat Gulcek; Ahmet Ucaner
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2012-10-16

9.  Surgical site infection following elective orthopaedic surgeries in geriatric patients: Incidence and associated risk factors.

Authors:  Zhiquan Liang; Kai Rong; Wenfei Gu; Xin Yu; Rui Fang; Yingjie Deng; Laijin Lu
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 3.315

10.  Intramedullary femoral nailing through the trochanteric fossa versus greater trochanter tip: a randomized controlled study with in-depth functional outcome results.

Authors:  C M Ansari Moein; H J Ten Duis; P L Oey; G A P de Kort; W van der Meulen; Chr van der Werken
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2011-03-19       Impact factor: 3.693

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.