| Literature DB >> 35962386 |
Shuo Yang1, Yelin Yang2, Yongfeng Huo1, Jian Yu1, Luxin Sheng1, Xiao Sun1, Xinhui Liu3, Jian Yin4, Zhaoyang Yin5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the degree of displacement of a femoral shaft fracture with the third fragment on fracture healing after intramedullary nailing.Entities:
Keywords: Femoral shaft fracture; Intramedullary nail; Minimally invasive reduction; Third fragment
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35962386 PMCID: PMC9373464 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03275-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.677
Fig. 1Flowchart to identify patients with femoral shaft fractures meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria
Demographic data of patients with femoral shaft fracture
| Demographic data | |
|---|---|
| Age (mean ± SD) | 38.0 ± 12.0 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 142 |
| Female | 74 |
| Side | |
| Right | 95 |
| Left | 121 |
| Cause of injury | |
| Cycling fall | 32 |
| Traffic accident | 127 |
| Fall from height | 33 |
| Crush injury | 24 |
| Winquist grade (n–pts) | |
| I | 18 |
| II | 154 |
| III | 38 |
| IV | 6 |
Demographic data of the patient groups with Grade I, II and III displacement
| Grade I displacement ( | Grade II displacement ( | Grade III displacement ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (S.D.) | 37.8 (13.3) | 40.5 (10.4) | 36.6 (11.9) | 0.760 |
| Gender ( | 0.509 | |||
| Male | 83 (68.6%) | 31 (59.6%) | 19 (67.9%) | |
| Female | 38 (31.4%) | 21 (40.4%) | 9 (32.1%) | |
| Side | 0.815 | |||
| Right | 52 (43.0%) | 25 (48.1%) | 12 (42.9%) | |
| Left | 69 (57.0%) | 27 (51.9%) | 16 (57.1%) | |
| Cause of injury ( | 0.859 | |||
| Cycling fall | 21 | 5 | 3 | |
| Traffic accident | 70 | 33 | 16 | |
| Fall from height | 18 | 8 | 5 | |
| Crush injury | 12 | 6 | 4 | |
| The time from injury to surgery (S.D.) | 4.6 (1.4) | 4.5 (1.1) | 4.1 (1.2) | 0.138 |
Demographic data of the patient groups with non-reversal and reversal
| Non-reversal ( | Reversal ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (S.D.) | 38.2 (12.3) | 34.0 (6.6) | 0.165 |
| Gender ( | 0.627 | ||
| Male | 133 (66.2%) | 9 (60%) | |
| Female | 68 (33.8%) | 6 (40%) | |
| Side | 0.747 | ||
| Right | 89 (44.3%) | 6 (40%) | |
| Left | 112 (55.7%) | 9 (60%) | |
| Cause of injury ( | 0.922 | ||
| Cycling fall | 29 | 3 | |
| Traffic accident | 119 | 8 | |
| Fall from height | 31 | 2 | |
| Crush injury | 22 | 2 | |
| The time from injury to surgery (S.D.) | 4.4 (1.2) | 3.8 (0.8) | 0.073 |
Fig. 2Example of a femoral shaft fracture where the degree of fracture fragment displacement is grade I. A A 36-year-old man sustained a right femoral shaft fracture with a fracture fragment; B the lateral views after closed intramedullary nailing showing a fragment size of 133.6 mm and a displacement distance of 9.9 mm; C the anteroposterior and lateral views after closed intramedullary nailing showing a displaced fragment presenting as a gap of grade I displacement; D the anteroposterior and lateral views at 3 months postoperatively showing that the callus at the fracture site has grown well; E the anteroposterior and lateral views at 16 months postoperatively showing complete fracture reunion
Fig. 3Example of a femoral shaft fracture where the degree of fracture fragment displacement is grade II. A A 12-year-old girl sustained a left femoral shaft fracture with a fracture fragment; B the anteroposterior view after closed reduction showing the fracture fragment located in the medial side of the shaft (grade I displacement); C the anteroposterior view at 3 months postoperatively showing good callus growth at the fracture site; D the lateral view at 3 months postoperatively showing good callus growth at the fracture site; E the anteroposterior view at 9 months postoperatively showing complete fracture reunion
Fig. 4Example of a femoral shaft fracture where the degree of fracture fragment displacement is grade III. A A 25-year-old man sustained a right femoral shaft fracture with a fracture fragment; B the lateral view after closed reduction showing that the fracture is at the anterolateral aspect of the shaft (grade II displacement); C the anteroposterior view after closed reduction showing that the fracture is at the anterolateral aspect of the shaft (grade II displacement); D the anteroposterior view at 3 months postoperatively showing poor callus growth at the fracture site; E the lateral view at 3 months postoperatively showing poor callus growth at the fracture site; F the anteroposterior view at 9 months postoperatively showing that the proximal and distal fracture fragments are connected to the shaft; G the lateral view at 9 months postoperatively showing that the proximal and distal fracture fragments are connected to the shaft
Fig. 5Example of a femoral shaft fracture where the degree of fracture fragment displacement is grade IV. A A 28-year-old man sustained a right femoral shaft fracture with a fracture fragment; B the lateral view after closed reduction showing that the fracture fragment is turned over and greatly displaced (grade IV displacement); C the lateral view at 3 months postoperatively showing that the fracture site defect and that the medial callus has grown well; D the lateral view at 3 months postoperatively showing that the fracture fragment is free in front of the shaft and that the callus has grown well behind the fracture; E the anteroposterior view at 1 year postoperatively showing good medial callus growth and the lateral bone defect at the fracture site; F the lateral view at 1 year postoperatively showing partial absorption of the free fracture fragment
Comparison of the results at different postoperative periods in the patient groups with Grade I, II and III displacement
| Grade I displacement ( | Grade II displacement ( | Grade III displacement ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mRUSF (3 months) (S.D.) | 7.0 (1.4) | 5.3 (1.5) | 4.8 (1.3) | < 0.001* |
| mRUSF (6 months) (S.D.) | 9.0 (1.7) | 6.8 (2.0) | 6.1 (1.9) | < 0.001* |
| mRUSF (9 months) (S.D.) | 11.1 (2.1) | 8.3 (2.6) | 7.6 (2.4) | < 0.001* |
| mRUSF (12 months) (S.D.) | 12.7 (2.2) | 9.4 (2.8) | 8.9 (2.6) | < 0.001* |
| Union rate/% | 89.3 | 46.2 | 28.6 | < 0.001* |
| Mean union time (month) (S.D.) | 7.7 (2.2) | 8.6 (1.5) | 13.5 (1.6) | < 0.001* |
*P < 0.05
Comparison of the results at different postoperative periods in the patient groups with fragment non-reversal and reversal
| Non-reversal ( | Reversal ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| mRUSF (3 months) (S.D.) | 6.3 (1.7) | 4.2 (0.8) | < 0.001* |
| mRUSF (6 months) (S.D.) | 8.0 (2.2) | 4.9 (1.4) | < 0.001* |
| mRUSF (9 months) (S.D.) | 9.9 (2.7) | 5.8 (1.7) | < 0.001* |
| mRUSF (12 months) (S.D.) | 11.3 (2.9) | 6.7 (2.3) | < 0.001* |
| Union rate/% | 69.7 | 13.3 | < 0.001* |
| Mean union time (month) (S.D.) | 8.2 (2.5) | 16.5 (2.7) | 0.010* |
*P < 0.05