Literature DB >> 24604112

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

Dong Hoon Lee1, Keun Jung Ryu, Hae Ryong Song, Soo-Hong Han.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor (ISKD) (Orthofix Inc, Lewisville, TX, USA) is an intramedullary device designed for more comfortable limb lengthening than that with external fixators; lengthening is achieved with this nail using rotational oscillation between two telescoping sections. However, the degree to which this device achieves this goal and its complication rate have not been fully documented. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined (1) the frequency with which distraction was not achieved at the desired rate, (2) whether pain differed between patients with normally and abnormally distracting nails, (3) risk factors for abnormal nails, and (4) other complications.
METHODS: We analyzed 35 lengthening segments (26 femurs, nine tibias) in 19 patients. Mean length achieved was 47 mm. Femoral nails were categorized into four groups according to distraction rate: normal, runaway (unintentionally faster rate [> 1.5 mm/day]), difficult-to-distract (slower rate [< 0.8 mm/day] requiring manual manipulation but not requiring general anesthesia), and nondistracting (slower rate [< 0.8 mm/day] requiring manual manipulation under general anesthesia or reosteotomy). Possible risk factors, including age, BMI, preoperative thigh circumferences, degree of intramedullary overreaming, and length of the thicker portion of the nail within the distal fragment, were compared among groups. VAS pain scores were compared among groups under three conditions: rest, physiotherapy, and distraction motion. Complications were also analyzed. Minimum followup was 15 months (mean, 26 months; range, 15-38 months) after first-stage surgery.
RESULTS: Abnormal distraction rate was observed in 21 of 35 segments (60%; 17 femurs, four tibias). VAS pain scores showed no differences among groups during rest or physiotherapy but were higher (p = 0.02) in the problematic nails (7-8 points) versus normal nails (3 points) during distraction. Only mean length of the thicker portion of the nail within the distal fragment differed between normally and abnormally distracting nails (95 mm versus 100 mm; p = 0.03), although this was unlikely to be clinically important. Complications occurred in 10 patients (53%), including five with decreased ankle ROM during distraction, four with delayed bone healing, and one with mechanical device failure during distraction.
CONCLUSIONS: Rate control was difficult to achieve with the ISKD nail for femoral and tibial lengthenings, complications were relatively common, and among patients in whom rate control was not achieved, pain levels were high. Based on our findings, we believe that surgeons should avoid use of this nail. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24604112      PMCID: PMC4397745          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3547-4

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


  18 in total

1.  [Results of animal experiments with an implantable femur distractor for operative leg lengthening (author's transl)].

Authors:  A N Witt; M Jäger
Journal:  Arch Orthop Unfallchir       Date:  1977-06-30

2.  Mechanical characterization of a totally intramedullary gradual elongation nail.

Authors:  J M Guichet; R S Casar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor in the treatment of leg length discrepancy--a review of 16 cases and analysis of complications.

Authors:  Kemble Wang; Elton Edwards
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 4.  Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique.

Authors:  D Paley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Limb lengthening by callus distraction. Complications in 53 cases operated 1980-1991.

Authors:  B Tjernström; S Olerud; L Rehnberg
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1994-08

6.  [Lengthening of the femur using implantable appliances].

Authors:  A I Bliskunov
Journal:  Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 0.531

7.  [The extension nail. A new method for lengthening of the femur and tibia (author's transl)].

Authors:  F Baumann; J Harms
Journal:  Arch Orthop Unfallchir       Date:  1977-12-09

8.  The intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor (ISKD): first clinical results of a new intramedullary nail for lengthening of the femur and tibia.

Authors:  J D Cole; D Justin; T Kasparis; D DeVlught; C Knobloch
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.586

9.  Gradual femoral lengthening with the Albizzia intramedullary nail.

Authors:  Jean-Marc Guichet; Barbara Deromedis; Leo T Donnan; Giovanni Peretti; Pierre Lascombes; Flavio Bado
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Improved comfort in lower limb lengthening with the intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor. Principles and preliminary clinical experiences.

Authors:  Stefan Hankemeier; Hans-Christoph Pape; Thomas Gosling; Tobias Hufner; Martinus Richter; Christian Krettek
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2004-01-27       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  16 in total

1.  Editorial: indications--on the fringes and in the mainstream.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold; Sanjeev Sabharwal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Editorial: When "safe and effective" becomes dangerous.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Functional recovery of daily living and sports activities after cosmetic bilateral tibia lengthening.

Authors:  Kun-Bo Park; Yoon Hae Kwak; Jung Woo Lee; Byoung Kyu Park; Hoon Park; Dong Hoon Lee
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  Lower extremity growth and deformity.

Authors:  Amanda T Whitaker; Carley Vuillermin
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-12

5.  Pain levels during distraction osteogenesis with lengthening nails in 168 cases.

Authors:  Nikolaus Degen; N de Almeida Lopes; F Wolf; J Fürmetz; E Euler; W Böcker; P H Thaller
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-04-27

6.  CORR Insights®: What Are the Potential Benefits and Risks of Using Magnetically Driven Antegrade Intramedullary Lengthening Nails for Femoral Lengthening to Treat Leg Length Discrepancy?

Authors:  Sanjeev Sabharwal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.755

7.  Reamed Intramedullary Nailing has an Adverse Effect on Bone Regeneration During the Distraction Phase in Tibial Lengthening.

Authors:  Keun Jung Ryu; Bang Hyun Kim; Jin Ho Hwang; Hyun Woo Kim; Dong Hoon Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-10-27       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

Review 9.  [Research progress of intramedullary lengthening nail technology].

Authors:  Jin Zhang; Yonghong Zhang; Chaoqi Wang; Sihe Qin
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-05-15

10.  Lengthening over nails using the double plate system ONAS-DPS.

Authors:  Vane Antolič
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2016-02-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.