Achilles Bekos1, Spyridon Sioutis1, Andreas Kostroglou2, Theodosios Saranteas2, Andreas F Mavrogenis3. 1. First Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. 2. Second Department of Anesthesiology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. 3. First Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. afm@otenet.gr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To summarize the evolution of intramedullary nailing, highlight important milestones, introduce the atmosphere of the era concerning the first uses and development of intramedullary nailing, and present the status of nailing in modern international orthopaedics and traumatology. METHOD: A thorough literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Google Scholar as well as in physical books in libraries to summarize the literature on the history and evolution of intramedullary nailing. RESULTS: The first use of an intramedullary device was attested in ancient Egypt; however, the first use of intramedullary nailing was reported in 1524 in Mexico, and the first medical journals reported on intramedullary nailing around the mid-1800s. The evolutions of intramedullary nailing including approach, material, cross-section and shape, and reaming technique occurred in the twentieth century. During the 1960s, intramedullary nailing was abandoned in favour of plate and screws osteosynthesis; however, in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, a surge of novelties including flexible reaming, interlocking, and use of image intensification and titanium nails led to the advent of the second-generation intramedullary nailing. Today, intramedullary nailing has become the standard treatment of long bone fractures with low infection rates, small scars, excellent stabilization of the fractures, and immediate mobilization of the patients. CONCLUSION: Intramedullary nailing has revolutionized the treatment of long bone fractures. However, with numerous nail designs, a lot of information on their efficacy is lacking. Considerably more work will need to be done to determine the optimal nail specifications.
PURPOSE: To summarize the evolution of intramedullary nailing, highlight important milestones, introduce the atmosphere of the era concerning the first uses and development of intramedullary nailing, and present the status of nailing in modern international orthopaedics and traumatology. METHOD: A thorough literature search was undertaken in PubMed and Google Scholar as well as in physical books in libraries to summarize the literature on the history and evolution of intramedullary nailing. RESULTS: The first use of an intramedullary device was attested in ancient Egypt; however, the first use of intramedullary nailing was reported in 1524 in Mexico, and the first medical journals reported on intramedullary nailing around the mid-1800s. The evolutions of intramedullary nailing including approach, material, cross-section and shape, and reaming technique occurred in the twentieth century. During the 1960s, intramedullary nailing was abandoned in favour of plate and screws osteosynthesis; however, in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, a surge of novelties including flexible reaming, interlocking, and use of image intensification and titanium nails led to the advent of the second-generation intramedullary nailing. Today, intramedullary nailing has become the standard treatment of long bone fractures with low infection rates, small scars, excellent stabilization of the fractures, and immediate mobilization of the patients. CONCLUSION: Intramedullary nailing has revolutionized the treatment of long bone fractures. However, with numerous nail designs, a lot of information on their efficacy is lacking. Considerably more work will need to be done to determine the optimal nail specifications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dynamization; Interlocking; Intramedullary nailing; Orthopaedic heritage; Working length
Authors: Natacha Rosa; Miguel Marta; Mário Vaz; Sergio M O Tavares; Ricardo Simoes; Fernão D Magalhães; Antonio Torres Marques Journal: Proc Inst Mech Eng H Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 1.617
Authors: Andreas F Mavrogenis; Konstantinos Markatos; Theodosis Saranteas; Ioannis Ignatiadis; Sarantis Spyridonos; Marko Bumbasirevic; Alexandru Valentin Georgescu; Alexandros Beris; Panayotis N Soucacos Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2019-01-10
Authors: Andreas F Mavrogenis; Theodosis Saranteas; Konstantinos Markatos; Antonia Kotsiou; Christina Tesseromatis Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 3.075