Management of Traumatic Femur Fractures: A Focus on the Time to Intramedullary Nailing and Clinical Outcomes.
bone union
femur fracture
intramedullary nailing
orthopedic surgery and outcomes
shaft fracture
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Mar 2023
17 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
09
02
2023
revised:
09
03
2023
accepted:
15
03
2023
medline:
30
3
2023
entrez:
29
3
2023
pubmed:
30
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Femur shaft factures (FSF) are common injuries following high-energy mechanisms mainly involving motor vehicle crashes (MVC). We evaluated the timings of nailing management and analyzed the pattern of fracture union and outcome in a level 1 trauma center. This was a retrospective observational study of all the admitted trauma patients who sustained femoral fractures between January 2016 and September 2020. Data were analyzed and compared based on time to Intramedullary Nailing (IMN) (<12 h, 12-24 h and >24 h) and outcomes of FSF (union, delayed union and nonunion). A total of 668 eligible patients were included in the study, of which the majority were males (90.9%) with a mean age of 34.5 ± 15.8, and 54% of the injuries were due to MVCs. The chest (35.8%) was the most commonly associated injured body region, followed by the pelvis (25.9%) and spine (25.4%). Most of femur fractures (93.3%) were unilateral, and 84.4% were closed fractures. The complete union of fractures was observed in 76.8% of cases, whereas only 4.2% and 3.3% cases had delayed union and nonunion, respectively, on the clinical follow-up. Patients in the delayed IMN (>24 h) were severely injured, had bilateral femur fracture ( This study showed that femur fracture is not uncommon (8.9%), which is manifested with the variety of clinical characteristics, depending on the mechanism, management and outcome in our center. Bilateral fracture, retrograde nailing and AO classification type C were the significant risk factors of non-union in patients with diaphyseal fractures. The timing of IMN has an impact on the fracture union; however, it is not a statistically significant difference. Therefore, the treating physicians should consider the potential risk factors for a better outcome by careful selection of treatment in sub-groups of patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Femur shaft factures (FSF) are common injuries following high-energy mechanisms mainly involving motor vehicle crashes (MVC). We evaluated the timings of nailing management and analyzed the pattern of fracture union and outcome in a level 1 trauma center.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective observational study of all the admitted trauma patients who sustained femoral fractures between January 2016 and September 2020. Data were analyzed and compared based on time to Intramedullary Nailing (IMN) (<12 h, 12-24 h and >24 h) and outcomes of FSF (union, delayed union and nonunion).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 668 eligible patients were included in the study, of which the majority were males (90.9%) with a mean age of 34.5 ± 15.8, and 54% of the injuries were due to MVCs. The chest (35.8%) was the most commonly associated injured body region, followed by the pelvis (25.9%) and spine (25.4%). Most of femur fractures (93.3%) were unilateral, and 84.4% were closed fractures. The complete union of fractures was observed in 76.8% of cases, whereas only 4.2% and 3.3% cases had delayed union and nonunion, respectively, on the clinical follow-up. Patients in the delayed IMN (>24 h) were severely injured, had bilateral femur fracture (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that femur fracture is not uncommon (8.9%), which is manifested with the variety of clinical characteristics, depending on the mechanism, management and outcome in our center. Bilateral fracture, retrograde nailing and AO classification type C were the significant risk factors of non-union in patients with diaphyseal fractures. The timing of IMN has an impact on the fracture union; however, it is not a statistically significant difference. Therefore, the treating physicians should consider the potential risk factors for a better outcome by careful selection of treatment in sub-groups of patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36980455
pii: diagnostics13061147
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13061147
pmc: PMC10047428
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Injury. 2022 Mar;53(3):1231-1236
pubmed: 34645566
Can J Surg. 2003 Apr;46(2):124-8
pubmed: 12691353
J Trauma. 2000 Apr;48(4):613-21; discussion 621-3
pubmed: 10780592
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Jun 28;13(1):160
pubmed: 29954434
Injury. 2018 Oct;49(10):1905-1911
pubmed: 30082109
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Jun;80(6):952-6
pubmed: 26891161
JAMA. 2017 Nov 28;318(20):1994-2003
pubmed: 29183076
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 May-Jun;23(5 Suppl):S39-46
pubmed: 19390375
Injury. 2018 Apr;49(4):846-851
pubmed: 29566986
Injury. 2000 Jun;31(5):367-71
pubmed: 10775694
Clin Ter. 2022 Sep-Oct;173(5):398-399
pubmed: 36155723
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jun;82(6):781-8
pubmed: 10859097
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr;(241):83-8
pubmed: 2924482
Eur J Med Res. 2022 Jan 13;27(1):7
pubmed: 35027077
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Jun;74(6):1516-20
pubmed: 23694881
J Clin Med. 2021 Jun 21;10(12):
pubmed: 34205701
Acta Orthop. 2013 Oct;84(5):460-7
pubmed: 24171678
Injury. 2013 Feb;44(2):221-5
pubmed: 23040674
Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:359-66
pubmed: 16958471
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021 Jan;12(1):72-82
pubmed: 33716431
J Orthop Traumatol. 2008 Jun;9(2):97-9
pubmed: 19384623
J Trauma. 2005 Dec;59(6):1375-94; discussion 1394-5
pubmed: 16394911
Int Orthop. 2007 Jun;31(3):409-13
pubmed: 16909254
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Dec;32(12):629-633
pubmed: 30299378
Orthop Surg. 2022 Sep;14(9):2132-2140
pubmed: 35929600
Chin J Traumatol. 2016 Apr 1;19(2):109-12
pubmed: 27140219
Injury. 2021 Apr;52(4):956-960
pubmed: 33541685
Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2016 Jul-Sep;6(3):143-147
pubmed: 27722116
J Trauma. 2011 Jul;71(1):175-85
pubmed: 21336198
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013 Dec;1(2):59-63
pubmed: 25207289
Injury. 2005 Jul;36(7):813-22
pubmed: 15949481
Open Orthop J. 2015 Jul 31;9:324-31
pubmed: 26312117
EFORT Open Rev. 2022 Jul 05;7(7):516-525
pubmed: 35900220
J Orthop Trauma. 2002 Jul;16(6):394-402
pubmed: 12142827
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 31;18(11):
pubmed: 34072990
J Surg Orthop Adv. 2019 Summer;28(2):137-143
pubmed: 31411960
Acta Orthop. 2021 Feb;92(1):40-46
pubmed: 33103546
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014 Oct;24(7):1243-7
pubmed: 23934503
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Mar;(372):241-9
pubmed: 10738433
Age Ageing. 2003 Jan;32(1):74-80
pubmed: 12540352
Phys Ther. 2006 Apr;86(4):558-72
pubmed: 16579672
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2013 Aug;8(2):77-88
pubmed: 23892497
World J Surg. 2013 Feb;37(2):349-55
pubmed: 23052810
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019 Mar 27;4(1):e000203
pubmed: 31058233
Injury. 2017 Jun;48 Suppl 1:S69-S75
pubmed: 28483359
Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2018 Mar;76(1):9-13
pubmed: 29537951
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul;98(29):e16559
pubmed: 31335740