Non-Union Scoring System (NUSS): Is It Enough in Clinical Practice?
Bone defect
Fracture
NUSS
Non-Union Scoring System
Non-union
Journal
Indian journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0019-5413
Titre abrégé: Indian J Orthop
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 0137736
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
04
07
2022
accepted:
18
10
2022
entrez:
19
1
2023
pubmed:
20
1
2023
medline:
20
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bone consolidation defects represent a real orthopedic challenge because of the absence of validated treatment guidelines that can assist the surgeon in his choices. The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of the Non-Union Scoring System NUSS treatment protocol in the management of long bone non-unions by comparing it to the experience-based therapeutic approach carried out in our facility. We conducted a comparative outcome study of a retrospective series of 89 patients surgically treated for long bone non-union in our facility vs. clinical results reported by Calori et al. obtained following the NUSS treatment protocol. Radiographic healing was reached in 13/13 non-unions (100%) in group NUSS 1, in 58/62 (93.5%) in group NUSS 2, and in 13/14 (92.9%) in group NUSS 3. The mean time to radiographic healing was 5.69 ± 2.09 months in group 1, 7.38 ± 3.81 months in group 2 and 9.23 ± 2.31 months in group 3. 91% of patients in group I, 69% in group II and 48% in group III received what would be considered by the NUSS treatment protocol an "overtreatment", especially from a biological stand point. The comparative outcome analysis shows that our case series achieved significantly higher global healing rates ( From the results obtained, we can assume that the NUSS treatment protocol might underestimate the necessary therapies, particularly from a biological point of view.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36655209
doi: 10.1007/s43465-022-00767-5
pii: 767
pmc: PMC9789216
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
137-145Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of InterestsThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article. No financial support has been received by the authors for the preparation of this paper.
Références
Tissue Eng. 2005 May-Jun;11(5-6):768-77
pubmed: 15998217
Injury. 2007 May;38 Suppl 2:S3-9
pubmed: 17920415
J Orthop Res. 2002 May;20(3):593-9
pubmed: 12038636
Injury. 2002 Mar;33(2):145-50
pubmed: 11890916
Injury. 2014 Dec;45 Suppl 6:S93-7
pubmed: 25457326
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr;(241):146-65
pubmed: 2924458
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019 Apr;23(2 Suppl):12-18
pubmed: 30977866
BMC Surg. 2020 Jun 9;20(1):125
pubmed: 32517685
Front Microbiol. 2019 Jul 25;10:1626
pubmed: 31402901
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Sep;(414):7-24
pubmed: 12966271
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Aug 1;94(15):e1091-6
pubmed: 22854998
J Bone Jt Infect. 2017 Oct 9;2(4):194-201
pubmed: 29119078
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014 Nov;77(5):780-786
pubmed: 25494433
Injury. 2008 Sep;39 Suppl 2:S59-63
pubmed: 18804575
Injury. 2007 Sep;38 Suppl 4:S3-6
pubmed: 18224731
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009 Jan;20(1):281-6
pubmed: 18763024
Bone. 2010 Aug;47(2):212-8
pubmed: 20624692
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019 Apr;23(2 Suppl):240-251
pubmed: 30977891
Ital J Pediatr. 2019 Jul 26;45(1):91
pubmed: 31349859
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Feb;45(1):13-19
pubmed: 28577203
Orthopedics. 2011 May 18;34(5):359
pubmed: 21598896
Int J Infect Dis. 2005 May;9(3):127-38
pubmed: 15840453
J Cell Mol Med. 2015 Apr;19(4):685-713
pubmed: 25726940