Stress Modulation of Fracture Fixation Implants Beltran, Michael J; Collinge, Cory A; Gardner, Michael J
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
2016-October, Letnik:
24, Številka:
10
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Stress modulation is the concept of manipulating bridge plate variables to provide a flexible fixation construct that allows callus formation through uneventful secondary bone healing. Obtaining ...absolute stability through the anatomic reduction of all fracture fragments comes at the expense of fracture biology, whereas intramedullary nailing, which is more advantageous for diaphyseal fractures of the lower extremity, is technically demanding and often may not be possible when stabilizing many metaphyseal fractures. Overly stiff plating constructs are associated with asymmetric callus formation, early implant failure, and fracture nonunion. Numerous surgeon-controlled variables can be manipulated to increase flexibility without sacrificing strength, including using longer plates with well-spaced screws, choosing titanium or stainless steel implants, and using locking or nonlocking screws. Axially dynamic emerging concepts, such as far cortical locking and near cortical overdrilling, provide further treatment options when bridge plating techniques are used.
Background There is no consensus on the best treatment for periprosthetic supracondylar fracture.
Material and methods We systematically summarized and compared results of different fixation ...techniques in the management of acute distal femur fractures above a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Several databases were searched (Medline, Cochrane library, OTA and AAOS abstract databases) and baseline and outcome parameters were abstracted.
Results We extracted data from 29 case series with a total of 415 fractures. The following outcomes were noted: a nonunion rate of 9%, a fixation failure rate of 4%, an infection rate of 3%, and a revision surgery rate of 13%. Retrograde nailing was associated with relative risk reduction (RRR) of 87% (p = 0.01) for developing a nonunion and 70% (p = 0.03) for requiring revision surgery compared to traditional (non-locking) plating methods. Point estimates also suggested risk reductions for locking plates, although these were not statistically significant (57% for nonunion, p = 0.2; 43% for revision surgery, p = 0.23) compared to traditional plating. RRRs for nonunion and revision surgery were also statistically significantly lower for retrograde nailing and locking plates compared to nonoperative treatment.
Interpretation Modern-day treatment methods are superior to conventional treatment options in the management of distal femur fractures above TKAs. The results should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and the possible selection bias in case series.
Although increasingly used, the benefit of surgical treatment of displaced 2-part proximal humerus fractures has not been proven. This trial evaluates the clinical effectiveness of surgery with ...locking plate compared with non-operative treatment for these fractures.
The NITEP group conducted a superiority, assessor-blinded, multicenter randomized trial in 6 hospitals in Finland, Estonia, Sweden, and Denmark. Eighty-eight patients aged 60 years or older with displaced (more than 1 cm or 45 degrees) 2-part surgical or anatomical neck proximal humerus fracture were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either operative treatment with a locking plate or non-operative treatment. The mean age of patients was 72 years in the non-operative group and 73 years in the operative group, with a female sex distribution of 95% and 87%, respectively. Patients were recruited between February 2011 and April 2016. The primary outcome measure was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included Constant-Murley score, the visual analogue scale for pain, the quality of life questionnaire 15D, EuroQol Group's 5-dimension self-reported questionnaire EQ-5D, the Oxford Shoulder Score, and complications. The mean DASH score (0 best, 100 worst) at 2 years was 18.5 points for the operative treatment group and 17.4 points for the non-operative group (mean difference 1.1 95% CI -7.8 to 9.4, p = 0.81). At 2 years, there were no statistically or clinically significant between-group differences in any of the outcome measures. All 3 complications resulting in secondary surgery occurred in the operative group. The lack of blinding in patient-reported outcome assessment is a limitation of the study. Our assessor physiotherapists were, however, blinded.
This trial found no significant difference in clinical outcomes at 2 years between surgery and non-operative treatment in patients 60 years of age or older with displaced 2-part fractures of the proximal humerus. These results suggest that the current practice of performing surgery on the majority of displaced proximal 2-part fractures of the humerus in older adults may not be beneficial.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01246167.
Background
The best treatment for intertrochanteric hip fractures is controversial. The use of cephalomedullary nails has increased, whereas use of sliding hip screws has decreased despite the lack ...of evidence that cephalomedullary nails are more effective. As current orthopaedic trainees receive less exposure to sliding hip screws, this may continue to perpetuate the preferential use of cephalomedullary nails, with important implications for resident education, evidence-based best practices, and healthcare cost.
Questions/purposes
We asked: (1) What are the current practice patterns in surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures among orthopaedic surgeons? (2) Do surgical practice patterns differ based on surgeon characteristics, practice setting, and other factors? (3) What is the rationale behind these surgical practice patterns? (4) What postoperative approaches do surgeons use for intertrochanteric fractures?
Methods
A web-based survey containing 20 questions was distributed to active members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Three thousand seven-hundred eighty-six of 10,321 invited surgeons participated in the survey (37%), with a 97% completion rate (3687 of 3784 responded to all questions in the survey). The survey elicited information regarding surgeon demographics, preferred management strategies, and decision-making rationale for intertrochanteric fractures.
Results
Surgeons use cephalomedullary nails most frequently for treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Sixty-eight percent primarily use cephalomedullary nails, whereas only19% primarily use sliding hip screws, and the remaining 13% use cephalomedullary nails and sliding hip screws with equal frequency. The cephalomedullary nail was the dominant approach regardless of experience level or practice setting. Surgeons who practiced in a nonacademic setting (71% versus 58%; p < 0.001), did not supervise residents (71% versus 61%; p < 0.001), or treated more than five intertrochanteric fractures a month (78% versus 67%; p < 0.001) were more likely to use primarily cephalomedullary nails. Of the surgeons who used only cephalomedullary nails, ease of surgical technique (58%) was cited as the primary reason, whereas surgeons who used only sliding hip screws cite familiarity (44%) and improved outcomes (37%) as their primary reasons. Of those who use only short cephalomedullary nails, ease of technique (59%) was most frequently cited. Postoperatively, 67% allow the patient to bear weight as tolerated. Nearly all respondents (99.5%) use postoperative chemical thromboprophylaxis.
Conclusions
Despite that either sliding hip screw or cephalomedullary nail fixation are associated with equivalent outcomes for most intertrochanteric femur fractures, the cephalomedullary nail has emerged as the preferred construct, with the majority of surgeons believing that a cephalomedullary nail is easier to use, associated with improved outcomes, or is biomechanically superior to a sliding hip screw. The difference between what is evidence-based and what is done in clinical practice may be attributed to several factors, including financial considerations, educational experience, or inability of our current outcomes measures to reflect the experiences of surgeons. The educators, researchers, and policymakers among us must work harder to better define the roles of sliding hip screws and cephalomedullary nails and ensure that the increasing population with hip fractures receives high-quality and economically responsible care.
Level of Evidence
Level V, therapeutic study.
Two types of implants used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures are cephalocondylic intramedullary nails, which are inserted into the femoral canal proximally to distally across ...the fracture, and extramedullary implants (e.g. the sliding hip screw).
To compare cephalocondylic intramedullary nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (April 2010), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 13), and other sources.
All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing cephalocondylic nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures.
Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Wherever appropriate, results were pooled.
We included 43 trials containing predominantly older people with mainly trochanteric fractures. Twenty-two trials (3749 participants) compared the Gamma nail with the sliding hip screw (SHS). The Gamma nail was associated with increased risk of operative and later fracture of the femur and increased reoperation rate. There were no major differences between implants in wound infection, mortality or medical complications.Five trials (623 participants) compared the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) with the SHS. Fracture fixation complications were more common in the IMHS group. Results for post-operative complications, mortality and functional outcomes were similar in both groups.Three trials (394 participants) showed no difference in fracture fixation complications, reoperation, wound infection and length of hospital stay for proximal femoral nail (PFN) versus the SHS.None of the 10 trials (1491 participants) of other nail versus extramedullary implant comparisons for trochanteric fractures provided sufficient evidence to establish definite differences between the implants under test.Two trials (65 participants) found intramedullary nails were associated with fewer fracture fixation complications than fixed nail plates for unstable fractures at the level of the lesser trochanter.Two trials (124 participants) found a tendency to less fracture healing complications with the intramedullary nails compared with fixed nail plates for subtrochanteric fractures.
With its lower complication rate in comparison with intramedullary nails, and absence of functional outcome data to the contrary, the SHS appears superior for trochanteric fractures. Further studies are required to confirm whether more recently developed designs of intramedullary nail avoid the complications of previous nails. Intramedullary nails may have advantages over fixed angle plates for subtrochanteric and some unstable trochanteric fractures, but further studies are required.
Two types of implants used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures are cephalocondylic intramedullary nails, which are inserted into the femoral canal proximally to distally across ...the fracture, and extramedullary implants (e.g. the sliding hip screw).
To compare cephalocondylic intramedullary nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3 2007), EMBASE (1988 to 2007 Week 27), the UK National Research Register, orthopaedic journals, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles.
All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing cephalocondylic nails with extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures.
Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Wherever appropriate, results were pooled.
Predominantly older people with mainly trochanteric fractures were treated in the 36 included trials.Twenty-two trials (3871 participants) compared the Gamma nail with the sliding hip screw (SHS). The Gamma nail was associated with an increased risk of operative and later fracture of the femur and an increased reoperation rate. There were no major differences between implants in the wound infection, mortality or medical complications.Five trials (623 participants) compared the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) with the SHS. Fracture fixation complications were more common in the IMHS group; all cases of operative and later fracture of the femur occurred in this group. Results for post-operative complications, mortality and functional outcomes were similar in the two groups. Three trials (394 participants) showed no difference in fracture fixation complications, reoperation, wound infection and length of hospital stay for proximal femoral nail (PFN) compared with the SHS. Single trials compared the Targon PF nail versus SHS (60 participants); experimental mini-invasive static intramedullary nail versus SHS (60 participants); Kuntscher-Y nail versus SHS (230 participants); Gamma nail versus Medoff sliding plate (217 participants); and PFN versus Medoff sliding plate (203 participants). These trials provided insufficient evidence to establish differences between these implants. Two trials (65 participants with reverse and transverse fractures at the level of the lesser trochanter) found intramedullary nails (Gamma nail or PFN) were associated with better intra-operative results and fewer fracture fixation complications than extramedullary implants (a 90-degree blade plate or dynamic condylar screw) for these fractures.
Given the lower complication rate of the SHS in comparison with intramedullary nails, SHS appears superior for trochanteric fractures. Further studies are required to determine if different types of intramedullary nail produce similar results, or if intramedullary nails have advantages for selected fracture types (for example, subtrochanteric fractures).
Summary
We designed a study to compare the efficacy of five main therapeutic options, including external fixation, open reduction and plate osteosynthesis (ORPO), minimally invasive plate ...osteosynthesis (MIPO), dynamic compression plate (DCP), and intramedullary nail (IMN) in treating humeral shaft fractures. Our results indicated that MIPO and IMN were recommended as the optimal treatments for clinical use.
Purpose
Nowadays, five main therapeutic options are used in treating humeral shaft fractures: external fixation, open reduction and plate osteosynthesis (ORPO), minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), dynamic compression plate (DCP), and intramedullary nail (IMN). Aiming to provide reliable evidence for clinical selection, we designed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments.
Methods
NMA was conducted on Bayesian framework with software R 3.3.2 and STATA 13.0. Nonunion rate, radial nerve palsy rate, union time, complication rate, and infection rate were considered as primary outcomes. Mean operation time was the secondary outcome. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (
CrIs
) or mean difference (MD) with 95%
CrIs
. Surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to show the ranking probability of each treatment.
Results
Our results indicated that ORPO had a higher risk of radial nerve palsy than MIPO (OR = 2.83, 95%
CrIs
= 1.28–6.23), and DCP had a better performance in preventing complications than IMN (OR = 0.31, 95%
CrIs
= 0.11–0.84); no other significant difference were observed. According to the SUCRA results, MIPO had a high-ranking probability in almost all outcomes, while external fixation had lowest values in the majority of outcomes.
Conclusions
We recommended MIPO as the optimal treatment for humeral shaft fractures after taking all outcomes into consideration; IMN was also recommended for its relatively good performance, but its complication still needed to be noticed.
Abstract Introduction One of the most challenging musculoskeletal complications in modern trauma surgery is infection after fracture fixation (IAFF). Although infections are clinically obvious in ...many cases, a clear definition of the term IAFF is crucial, not only for the evaluation of published research data but also for the establishment of uniform treatment concepts. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the definitions used in the scientific literature to describe infectious complications after internal fixation of fractures. The hypothesis of this study was that the majority of fracture-related literature do not define IAFF. Material and methods A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Medline (OvidSP), PubMed publisher and Web-of-Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fracture fixation. Data were collected on the definition of infectious complications after fracture fixation used in each study. Study selection was accomplished through two phases. During the first phase, titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and the full texts of relevant articles were obtained. During the second phase, full-text articles were reviewed. All definitions were literally extracted and collected in a database. Then, a classification was designed to rate the quality of the description of IAFF. Results A total of 100 RCT’s were identified in the search. Of 100 studies, only two (2%) cited a validated definition to describe IAFF. In 28 (28%) RCTs, the authors used a self-designed definition. In the other 70 RCTs, (70%) there was no description of a definition in the Methods section, although all of the articles described infections as an outcome parameter in the Results section. Conclusion This systematic review shows that IAFF is not defined in a large majority of the fracture-related literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted with the objective to explore this important issue. The lack of a consensus definition remains a problem in current orthopedic trauma research and treatment and this void should be addressed in the near future.
Hip fractures are of great interest worldwide as the geriatric population continues to increase rapidly. Currently, surgeons prefer to use cephalomedullary nail for internal fixation of ...pertrochanteric/intertrochanteric fractures. This article summarizes 10 concepts in hip fracture treatment over the past 20 years, including fracture line mapping, proximal lateral wall and anterior cortex, posteromedial lesser trochanter-calcar fragment, anteromedial cortex support reduction, changes of fracture reduction after sliding and secondary stability, nail entry point and wedge-open deformity, tip-apex distance and calcar-referenced tip-apex distance, femoral anterior bowing and nail modification, long nails for wide medullary canal and large posterior coronal fragment, and postoperative stability score.
To compare operative and nonoperative treatment for displaced distal radius fractures in patients aged over 65 years.
A total of 100 patients were randomized in this non-inferiority trial, comparing ...cast immobilization with operation with a volar locking plate. Patients with displaced AO/OTA A and C fractures were eligible if one of the following were found after initial closed reduction: 1) dorsal angulation > 10°; 2) ulnar variance > 3 mm; or 3) intra-articular step-off > 2 mm. Primary outcome measure was the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) after 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE), EuroQol-5 dimensions 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), range of motion (ROM), grip strength, "satisfaction with wrist function" (score 0 to 10), and complications.
In all, 89 women and 11 men were included. Mean age was 74 years (65 to 91). Nonoperative treatment was non-inferior to operation with a five-point difference in median QuickDASH after 12 months (p = 0.206). After three and six months QuickDASH favoured the operative group (p = 0.010 and 0.030). Median values for PRWHE were 19 (interquartile range (IRQ) 10 to 32) in the operative group versus ten (IQR 1 to 31) in the nonoperative group at three months (p = 0.064), nine (IQR 2 to 20) versus five (IQR 0 to 13) (p = 0.020) at six months, and two (IQR 0 to 12) versus zero (IQR 0 to 8) (p = 0.019) after 12 months. Range of motion was similar between the groups. The EQ-5D-5L index score was better (mean difference 0.07) in the operative group at three and 12 months (p = 0.008 and 0.020). The complication rate was similar (p = 0.220). The operated patients were more satisfied with wrist function (median 8 (IQR 6 to 9) vs 6 (IQR 5 to 7) at three months, p = 0.002; 9 (IQR 7 to 9) vs 8 (IQR 6 to 8) at six months, p = 0.002; and 10 (IQR 8 to 10) vs 8 (IQR 7 to 9) at 12 months, p < 0.001).
Nonoperative treatment was non-inferior to operative treatment based on QuickDASH after one year. Patients in the operative group had a faster recovery and were more satisfied with wrist function. Results from previous trials comparing operative and nonoperative treatment for displaced distal radius fractures in the elderly vary between favouring the operative group and showing similar results between the treatments. This randomized trial suggests that most elderly patients may be treated nonoperatively. Cite this article:
2021;103-B(2):247-255.
PDF
