Use of minimally invasive cerclage wiring for displaced major fragments of femoral shaft fractures after intramedullary nailing promotes bone union and a functional outcome

被引:3
作者
Tao, Xingguang [1 ]
Yang, Qing [1 ]
机构
[1] Fudan Univ, Zhongshan Hosp, Qingpu Dist Cent Hosp Shanghai, Dept Orthoped,Qingpu Branch, 1158 East Gongyuan Rd, Shanghai 201700, Peoples R China
关键词
Femur fracture; Cerclage wire; Intramedullary nail; Minimally invasive; MANAGEMENT; FEMUR;
D O I
10.1186/s13018-022-03439-0
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
Background: Femoral shaft fractures caused by high energy trauma can be very challenging due to the large variability in fracture morphology and poor functional outcomes. Displaced major fragments of femoral shaft fractures are difficult to manage after closed reduction and intramedullary nailing (IMN). The minimally invasive cerclage wiring (CW) procedure has become an optimal tool for major fragment resetting and stabilization after IMN. However, arguments continue for the potential risk of arterial injury, blood supply disruption, and delayed bone union or non-union with the CW procedure. The surgical algorithm for treating femoral shaft fractures with displaced major fragments remains controversial. Thus, emphasis is placed on whether the CW procedure can promote the bone union rate and improve functional outcomes without significant complications. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on all patients of femoral shaft fractures with displaced major fragments between June 2015 and August 2019 in our trauma centre. Eligible patients were included and stratified into the CW group and IMN group. Demographics, radiological data, callus formation, union time, and functional outcomes were critically compared between the two groups. Results: Thirty-seven patients were included in the present study according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, of whom 16 (43.2%) were stratified into the CW group, and 21 (56.8%) into the IMN group. The modified radiographic union score for femorae (mRUSH) in the CW group and IMN group was significantly different (11.94 +/- 1.29 vs. 7.95 +/- 0.74, 6 months; 15.88 +/- 0.50 vs. 10.33 +/- 0.91, 12 months) (p < 0.0001). The mean union time was significantly different between the CW and IMN groups (7.9 +/- 3.2 months vs. 20.1 +/- 8.48 months) (p < 0.0001). Bone union at 12 months differed significantly between the CW and IMN groups (15 vs. 5) (p < 0.05). The Harris Hip Score in the CW group was significantly higher than that in the IMN group (88.19 +/- 4.69 vs. 76.81 +/- 5.26, 12 months; 93.19 +/- 4.68 vs. 87.57 +/- 5.38, 24 months) (p < 0.01). The Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score was significantly different between the CW and IMN groups (78.50 +/- 5.65 vs. 67.71 +/- 4.65, 12 months; 89.50 +/- 5.05 vs. 75.81 +/- 8.90, 24 months) (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Minimally invasive CW is an optimal supplement for IMN in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures with displaced major fragments. As illustrated, the benefits of CW potentially include promotion of the bone union rate and improvement in functional outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
Agarwala Sanjay, 2017, J Orthop Case Rep, V7, P39, DOI 10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.842
[2]   Combination of low-contact cerclage wiring and osteosynthesis in the treatment of femoral fractures [J].
Angelini A. ;
Battiato C. .
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2016, 26 (4) :397-406
[3]   Percutaneous cerclage wiring, does it disrupt femoral blood supply? A cadaveric injection study [J].
Apivatthakakul, T. ;
Phaliphot, J. ;
Leuvitoonvechkit, S. .
INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2013, 44 (02) :168-174
[4]   Safe zones and a technical guide for cerclage wiring of the femur: a computed topographic angiogram (CTA) study [J].
Apivatthakakul, Theerachai ;
Siripipattanamongkol, P. ;
Oh, Chang-Wug ;
Sananpanich, K. ;
Phornphutkul, C. .
ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2018, 138 (01) :43-50
[5]   Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure [J].
Baecker, Henrik C. ;
Heyland, Mark ;
Wu, Chia H. ;
Perka, Carsten ;
Stoeckle, Ulrich ;
Braun, Karl F. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 27 (01)
[6]  
BARR H, 1987, J CARDIOVASC SURG, V28, P193
[7]   A lack of consensus in the assessment of fracture healing among orthopedic surgeons [J].
Bhandari, M ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Swiontkowski, MF ;
Tornetta, P ;
Sprague, S ;
Schemitsch, EH .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA, 2002, 16 (08) :562-566
[8]   Vascular injuries due to cerclage passer: Relevant anatomy and note of caution [J].
Devendra, Agraharam ;
Avinash, M. ;
Chidambaram, Dinesh ;
Dheenadhayalan, Jayaramaraju ;
Rajasekaran, S. .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2018, 26 (01)
[9]   Vascular complication after percutaneous femoral cerclage wire [J].
Ehlinger, M. ;
Niglis, L. ;
Favreau, H. ;
Kuntz, S. ;
Bierry, G. ;
Adam, P. ;
Bonnomet, F. .
ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2018, 104 (03) :377-381
[10]   CERCLAGE WIRING IN THE MANAGEMENT OF COMMINUTED FRACTURES OF THE FEMORAL-SHAFT [J].
FITZGERALD, JAW ;
SOUTHGATE, GW .
INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 1987, 18 (02) :111-116