Complications and risk factors of intramedullary bone lengthening nails: a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 314 FITBONE and PRECICE nails.
Journal
Acta orthopaedica
ISSN: 1745-3682
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101231512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 02 2023
17 02 2023
Historique:
received:
12
04
2022
entrez:
22
2
2023
pubmed:
23
2
2023
medline:
25
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Intramedullary bone-lengthening nails have become increasingly popular. The 2 most used and successful nails are the FITBONE and the PRECICE nails. Uniform reporting is lacking on complications of intramedullary bone-lengthening nails. The purpose was therefore to assess and categorize the complications of lower limb bone-lengthening nails and investigate risk factors. We performed a retrospective review of patients operated on with intramedullary lengthening nails at 2 hospitals. We included only lower limb lengthening with FITBONE and PRECICE nails. Recorded patient data was patient demographics, nail information, and any complication. Complications were graded according to severity and origin classification. Complication risk factors were assessed with modified Poisson regression. 314 segments in 257 patients were included. The FITBONE nail was predominantly used (75%), and most of the lengthenings were performed in the femur (80%). 53% of the patients had complications. 269 complications were identified in 175 segments (144 patients). Device-related complications were most frequent (0.3 complications/segment), followed by joint complications (0.2 complications/segment). An increased relative risk was found for complications in the tibia compared with the femur and for age groups above 30 years compared with the 10-19 years group. Complications with intramedullary bone lengthening nails were more frequent than has previously been reported, with 53% of patients sustaining a complication. Future studies need to document the complications meticulously so that the true risk can be established.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Intramedullary bone-lengthening nails have become increasingly popular. The 2 most used and successful nails are the FITBONE and the PRECICE nails. Uniform reporting is lacking on complications of intramedullary bone-lengthening nails. The purpose was therefore to assess and categorize the complications of lower limb bone-lengthening nails and investigate risk factors.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of patients operated on with intramedullary lengthening nails at 2 hospitals. We included only lower limb lengthening with FITBONE and PRECICE nails. Recorded patient data was patient demographics, nail information, and any complication. Complications were graded according to severity and origin classification. Complication risk factors were assessed with modified Poisson regression.
RESULTS
314 segments in 257 patients were included. The FITBONE nail was predominantly used (75%), and most of the lengthenings were performed in the femur (80%). 53% of the patients had complications. 269 complications were identified in 175 segments (144 patients). Device-related complications were most frequent (0.3 complications/segment), followed by joint complications (0.2 complications/segment). An increased relative risk was found for complications in the tibia compared with the femur and for age groups above 30 years compared with the 10-19 years group.
CONCLUSION
Complications with intramedullary bone lengthening nails were more frequent than has previously been reported, with 53% of patients sustaining a complication. Future studies need to document the complications meticulously so that the true risk can be established.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36807707
doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.8479
pmc: PMC9940487
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
51-59Références
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004 Mar;124(2):129-33
pubmed: 14745566
Injury. 2017 Jul;48(7):1597-1602
pubmed: 28381356
Bone Joint J. 2019 Sep;101-B(9):1168-1176
pubmed: 31474141
J Pediatr Orthop. 2022 Feb 1;42(2):e192-e200
pubmed: 34799542
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Jul;91(7):955-61
pubmed: 19567863
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Jan;(250):81-104
pubmed: 2403498
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Apr;(301):10-8
pubmed: 8156659
J Orthop Surg Res. 2016 Jan 16;11:11
pubmed: 26772540
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Oct;(343):135-43
pubmed: 9345218
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Dec;472(12):3869-78
pubmed: 24682741
Acta Orthop. 2009 Aug;80(4):435-9
pubmed: 19626469
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Apr 1;480(4):790-803
pubmed: 34780384
J Pediatr Orthop. 2006 Sep-Oct;26(5):634-40
pubmed: 16932104
Acta Orthop. 2021 Feb;92(1):120-127
pubmed: 33106069
Acta Orthop. 2019 Feb;90(1):81-87
pubmed: 30371122
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jun 22;18(1):63
pubmed: 29929477
J Pediatr Orthop. 2022 May-Jun 01;42(5):253-259
pubmed: 35180729
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2021 May-Aug;16(2):110-115
pubmed: 34804227
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 Dec;107(8):103055
pubmed: 34536594
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Sep 2;97(17):1432-40
pubmed: 26333739
Acta Orthop. 2015 Apr;86(2):248-56
pubmed: 25191936
SICOT J. 2017;3:25
pubmed: 28322717
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2012;46(1):42-9
pubmed: 22441451
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2020 May-Aug;15(2):98-105
pubmed: 33505526
APMIS. 1989 Aug;97(8):689-98
pubmed: 2669853
Ann Surg. 2002 Jun;235(6):803-13
pubmed: 12035036
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 May;85(5):838-48
pubmed: 12728034
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 Dec;107(8):102958
pubmed: 33965599
Arch Trauma Res. 2016 Aug 23;5(4):e36273
pubmed: 28144605
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Oct 30;8:70
pubmed: 18973665
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2016 Nov;11(3):199-205
pubmed: 27665618
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Dec;472(12):3860-8
pubmed: 24664194
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2015 Mar;24(2):123-30
pubmed: 25588049
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Apr 1;26(7):241-250
pubmed: 29494464