Literature DB >> 22143986

Femoral lengthening with lengthening over a nail has fewer complications than intramedullary skeletal kinetic distraction.

Shahab Mahboubian1, Matthew Seah, Austin T Fragomen, S Robert Rozbruch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lengthening over a nail and internal lengthening nails have been developed to minimize or eliminate patients' time wearing a frame during femur lengthening. However it is unclear whether either of these two approaches results in faster times to union or fewer complications over the other. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked which technique better achieved: (1) the lengthening goals, (2) the distraction rate control, (3) quality of the regenerate bone, (4) fewer complications, and (5) if SF-36 scores and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lower Limb Module (AAOS LLM) scores differ in each treatment modality?
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records and radiographs of 11 patients who had 12 Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor (ISKD) procedures between 2002 and 2005, and 21 patients with 22 femoral lengthenings performed as lengthening over nail procedures between 2005 and 2009. Details such as leg length discrepancies, operative time, time of removal of the external fixator or ISKD, and any complications encountered were recorded. SF-36 and AAOS LLM scores also were compiled. The minimum followups for the ISKD and the lengthening over nail cohorts were 62 months (average, 76 months; range, 62-93 months) and 13 months (average, 27 months; range, 13-38 months), respectively.
RESULTS: We observed no difference in achieving the lengthening goals between the two procedures. Distraction was not well controlled in the ISKD group; the distraction rates were 1.7 mm per day for the fast group (distraction rate greater than 1 mm/day) and 0.84 mm per day for the slow group (less than 1 mm/day). The lengthening over nail group had an average distraction rate of 0.88 mm per day. One of 20 of the patients who had lengthening over a nail had complications requiring additional unanticipated surgeries whereas six of 12 patients who had femoral lengthening in the ISKD group had such complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our observations, we believe the lengthening over nail technique for femoral lengthening is associated with fewer complications than the ISKD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22143986      PMCID: PMC3293955          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2204-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  27 in total

1.  Mechanical failure of the Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor in limb lengthening.

Authors:  R D Burghardt; J E Herzenberg; S C Specht; D Paley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-05

2.  Comparison of PACS and hard-copy 51-inch radiographs for measuring leg length and deformity.

Authors:  Saurabh Khakharia; Daniel Bigman; Austin T Fragomen; Helene Pavlov; S Robert Rozbruch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Biomechanical advantage of lengthening of the femur with an external fixator over an intramedullary nail.

Authors:  Woo-Kie Min; Byung-Guk Min; Chang-Wug Oh; Hae-Ryong Song; Jong-Keon Oh; Hyung-Soo Ahn; Byung-Chul Park; Poong-Taek Kim
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop B       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Radiographic classification of osteogenesis during bone distraction.

Authors:  Ru Li; Michael Saleh; Lang Yang; Les Coulton
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Limb lengthening and then insertion of an intramedullary nail: a case-matched comparison.

Authors:  S Robert Rozbruch; Dawn Kleinman; Austin T Fragomen; Svetlana Ilizarov
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-18       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction.

Authors:  G A Ilizarov
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Complications encountered during lengthening over an intramedullary nail.

Authors:  Mehmet Kocaoglu; Levent Eralp; Onder Kilicoglu; Halil Burc; Mehmet Cakmak
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Limb lengthening over a nail can safely reduce the duration of external fixation.

Authors:  Milind Chaudhary
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change.

Authors:  Norman A Johanson; Matthew H Liang; Lawren Daltroy; Sally Rudicel; John Richmond
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  27 in total

1.  Precision of the PRECICE internal bone lengthening nail.

Authors:  Yatin M Kirane; Austin T Fragomen; S Robert Rozbruch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Complications of the Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor (ISKD) in distraction osteogenesis.

Authors:  Dong Hoon Lee; Keun Jung Ryu; Hae Ryong Song; Soo-Hong Han
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  How should we lengthen post-traumatic limb defects? a systematic review and comparison of motorized lengthening systems, combined internal and external fixation and external fixation alone.

Authors:  Daniel Axelrod; Luc Rubinger; Ajay Shah; Pierre Guy; Herman Johal
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-11-22

4.  [Progress of remote-control intramedullary lengthening nail and its clinical treatment concept].

Authors:  Fuhuan Chen; H Thaller Peter; Sihe Qin
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-12-15

5.  What Factors Correlate With Length of Stay and Readmission After Limb Lengthening Procedures? A Large-database Study.

Authors:  Ashish Mittal; Sachin Allahabadi; Rishab Jayaram; Abhinav Nalluri; Matt Callahan; Sanjeev Sabharwal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Current concepts of leg lengthening.

Authors:  Carol C Hasler; Andreas H Krieg
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 1.548

7.  Internal lengthening device for congenital femoral deficiency and fibular hemimelia.

Authors:  Lior Shabtai; Stacy C Specht; Shawn C Standard; John E Herzenberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail.

Authors:  Austin T Fragomen; Anton M Kurtz; Jonathan R Barclay; Joseph Nguyen; S Robert Rozbruch
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2018-01-05

9.  How precise is the PRECICE compared to the ISKD in intramedullary limb lengthening? Reliability and safety in 26 procedures.

Authors:  Frank M Schiedel; Björn Vogt; Henning L Tretow; Britta Schuhknecht; Georg Gosheger; Melanie J Horter; Robert Rödl
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Lower Limb Core Scale: a new application to evaluate and compare the outcomes of bone and soft-tissue tumours resection and reconstruction.

Authors:  Andrea Monticelli; Davide Ciclamini; Michele Boffano; Elena Boux; Paolo Titolo; Bernardino Panero; Bruno Battiston; Raimondo Piana; Pierluigi Tos
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.