Functional results of lower extremity lengthening by motorized intramedullary nails

被引:31
|
作者
Dincyurek, Hakan [1 ]
Kocaoglu, Mehmet [2 ]
Eralp, I. Levent [3 ]
Bilen, F. Erkal [2 ]
Dikmen, Goksel [3 ]
Eren, Ilker [3 ]
机构
[1] Burhan Nalbantoglu State Hosp, Dept Orthoped & Traumatol, Nicosia, Cyprus
[2] Mem Hosp, Dept Orthoped & Traumatol, Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Istanbul Univ, Istanbul Tip Fak, Ortopedi & Traymatol Anabilim Dali, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
Complication; distraction; external fixator; intramedullary femoral nails; limb lengthening; SKELETAL KINETIC DISTRACTOR; CALLUS DISTRACTION; EXTERNAL FIXATOR; BONE TRANSPORT; COMPLICATIONS; OSTEOGENESIS; DEFORMITY; RECONSTRUCTION; EXPERIENCES; DISCREPANCY;
D O I
10.3944/AOTT.2012.2671
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing limb lengthening using motorized intramedullary nails. Methods: This study included eleven femora and 4 tibiae from 14 patients (9 male, 5 female; mean age: 26.9 years; range: 14 to 51 years) who underwent limb lengthening using motorized intramedullary femoral nails (Fitbone (R) TAA). Average preoperative limb shortening was 4.9 (range: 2.5 to 7.5) cm. Distraction was initiated on the seventh postoperative day. Serial radiographs and Paley's bone and functional outcome scoring systems were used to evaluate the results. Results: Mean follow-up period was 33.5 (range: 7 to 88) months. Mean distraction index value was 1.2 (range: 0.7 to 2.1) days/mm and mean bone-healing index value was 43.7 (range: 13.8 to 144) days/cm. The average lengthening achieved was 51.7 (range: 25 to 75) mm. The distraction mechanism of the nail did not function properly in two patients, restricted transient knee motion was observed in four patients, and delayed consolidation was observed in four patients. Other complications included valgus deformities and superficial infections surrounding the antenna of the intramedullary nail, as well as femur fractures at the proximal end of the nail. Bone scores were excellent in 11 segments and were good in one segment. Functional scores were excellent for all 12 patients. Conclusion: While usual complications related to the external fixators, such as pin-track infections and mobilization difficulties were not encountered, the development of additional complications such as dysfunction of the distraction mechanism should be monitored with the use of motorized intramedullary nails in limb lengthening.
引用
收藏
页码:42 / 49
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Lower limb lengthening: is there a difference in the lengthening index and infection rates of lengthening with external fixators, external fixators with intramedullary nails or intramedullary nailing alone? A systematic review of the literature
    Mark Brian Stephen Brewster
    Cyril Mauffrey
    Andrew C. Lewis
    Peter Hull
    European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2010, 20 : 103 - 108
  • [22] Lower limb lengthening: is there a difference in the lengthening index and infection rates of lengthening with external fixators, external fixators with intramedullary nails or intramedullary nailing alone? A systematic review of the literature
    Brewster, Mark Brian Stephen
    Mauffrey, Cyril
    Lewis, Andrew C.
    Hull, Peter
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY, 2010, 20 (02) : 103 - 108
  • [23] Complications and functional, psychological outcomes of bilateral tibial lengthening over intramedullary nail: evidence from Vietnam
    Nguyen Van, Luong
    Le Van, Doan
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2021, 45 (08) : 2007 - 2015
  • [24] Lengthening With Monolateral External Fixation Versus Magnetically Motorized Intramedullary Nail in Congenital Femoral Deficiency
    Szymczuk, Vivian L.
    Hammouda, Ahmed I.
    Gesheff, Martin G.
    Standard, Shawn C.
    Herzenberg, John E.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, 2019, 39 (09) : 458 - 465
  • [25] Limb lengthening with fully implantable magnetically actuated mechanical nails (PHENIX®)-Preliminary results
    Thaller, Peter Helmut
    Fuermetz, Julian
    Wolf, Florian
    Eilers, Thorsten
    Mutschler, Wolf
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2014, 45 : S60 - S65
  • [26] Bone lengthening using the Fitbone® motorized intramedullary nail: The first experience in France
    Accadbled, F.
    Pailhe, R.
    Cayaignac, E.
    de Gauzy, J. Sales
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2016, 102 (02) : 217 - 222
  • [27] The Evolution of Remote-Controlled Intramedullary Lengthening and Compression Nails
    Green, Stuart A.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA, 2017, 31 : S2 - S6
  • [28] Bone Lengthening with a Motorized Intramedullary Nail in 34 Patients with Posttraumatic Limb Length Discrepancies
    Teulieres, Maxime
    Langlais, Tristan
    de Gauzy, Jerome Sales
    Rolfing, Jan Duedal
    Accadbled, Franck
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (11)
  • [29] Lengthening in Congenital Femoral Deficiency A Comparison of Circular External Fixation and a Motorized Intramedullary Nail
    Black, Sheena R.
    Kwon, Michael S.
    Cherkashin, Alexander M.
    Samchukov, Mikhail L.
    Birch, John G.
    Jo, Chan-Hee
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2015, 97A (17) : 1432 - 1440
  • [30] Femoral Lengthening in Children: A Comparison of Motorized Intramedullary Nailing Versus External Fixation Techniques
    Tillotson, Laura O.
    Maddock, Connor L.
    Hanley, Jacqueline
    Arseneau, Gillian M.
    Bradley, Catharine S.
    Kelley, Simon P.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, 2022, 42 (05) : 253 - 259