Literature DB >> 33717907

Post-retrieval functionality testing of PRECICE lengthening nails: The "Sleeper" nail concept.

Hady H Eltayeby1,2, Hamza M Alrabai1,3, Julio J Jauregui4, Lior Y Shabtai5, John E Herzenberg1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: PRECICE intramedullary magnetic lengthening nails, introduced in 2011, have changed the landscape of long bone limb lengthening. The implants have a stroke ranging from 5 to 8 cm, but it may be desirable to perform part of the lengthening at one treatment, allow bone healing, leave the implant in place, dormant, and then return one or more years later to re-lengthen with the same implant. We call this the "sleeper" nail concept. This strategy may be gentler for the joints and soft tissues. Would the nail mechanism still be functional one or more years later?
METHODS: We tested 102 intact, consecutively explanted nails. Using a "fast magnet," the male part was lengthened to 5 mm short of its maximum stroke capacity and retracted back to 35 mm (all nails start with the male part exposed 30 mm). The nails passed the test if the male part succeeded in lengthening to 5 mm short of the maximum stroke capacity and back to 35 mm (or only retract in case fully deployed at testing). During our testing, the nails were prevented from reaching their full capacity of lengthening/retraction to avoid jamming the gears. Failure was defined as the inability or partial ability to complete the process.
RESULTS: Eighty-six nails (84.3%) performed successfully according to our testing standard. When comparing successful and failed nails in terms of nail type, generation, diameter, length and in vivo interval, there was no statistical significance. Comparing both groups in terms of status at testing (fully deployed or not) showed statistical significance with 9 of the 16 failed nails fully deployed at testing (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Dormant PRECICE nails can be reactivated for further lengthening. The results imply that full deployment may damage the mechanism, making future re-use by retracting and then re-lengthening unsuccessful. The candidate nails for this purpose should not have any signs of clear damage (bending or breakage) and should not have been fully deployed. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the need for possible nail exchange if the "sleeper" nail fails to wake up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV case series analysis of retrieved surgical implants.
© 2020 Delhi Orthopedic Association. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Expandable rod; Internal limb lengthening; PRECICE® nail; Sleeper nail

Year:  2020        PMID: 33717907      PMCID: PMC7920018          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0976-5662


  19 in total

1.  The results of limb lengthening by callus distraction using an extending intramedullary nail (Fitbone) in non-traumatic disorders.

Authors:  S Singh; A Lahiri; M Iqbal
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-07

2.  Calculating rate and duration of distraction for deformity correction with the Ilizarov technique.

Authors:  J E Herzenberg; N A Waanders
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  Femoral lengthening with the Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor.

Authors:  A H W R Simpson; H Shalaby; G Keenan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-07

4.  Metallosis following implantation of magnetically controlled growing rods in the treatment of scoliosis: a case series.

Authors:  K H Teoh; C von Ruhland; S L Evans; S H James; A Jones; J Howes; P R Davies; S Ahuja
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  Outcomes following femoral lengthening: An initial comparison of the Precice intramedullary lengthening nail and the LRS external fixator monorail system.

Authors:  M Laubscher; C Mitchell; A Timms; D Goodier; P Calder
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.082

6.  Leg lengthening with a motorized nail in adolescents : an alternative to external fixators?

Authors:  Andreas H Krieg; Bernhard M Speth; Bruce K Foster
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Lengthening With Monolateral External Fixation Versus Magnetically Motorized Intramedullary Nail in Congenital Femoral Deficiency.

Authors:  Vivian L Szymczuk; Ahmed I Hammouda; Martin G Gesheff; Shawn C Standard; John E Herzenberg
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.324

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.  Treatment of Post-Traumatic Femoral Discrepancy With PRECICE Magnetic-Powered Intramedullary Lengthening Nails.

Authors:  Ahmed I Hammouda; Julio J Jauregui; Martin G Gesheff; Shawn C Standard; Janet D Conway; John E Herzenberg
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  A retrieval analysis of the Precice intramedullary limb lengthening system.

Authors:  V C Panagiotopoulou; K Davda; H S Hothi; J Henckel; A Cerquiglini; W D Goodier; J Skinner; A Hart; P R Calder
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-08-04       Impact factor: 5.853

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.