Cargando…

Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the last decade, intramedullary limb lengthening has become a viable alternative to traditional external systems. We retrospectively analyzed the use of an intramedullary motorized nail (Fitbone) in a consecutive series of 32 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During the peri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krieg, Andreas H, Lenze, Ulrich, Speth, Bernhard M, Hasler, Carol C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3235314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21561309
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.584209
_version_ 1782218591654903808
author Krieg, Andreas H
Lenze, Ulrich
Speth, Bernhard M
Hasler, Carol C
author_facet Krieg, Andreas H
Lenze, Ulrich
Speth, Bernhard M
Hasler, Carol C
author_sort Krieg, Andreas H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the last decade, intramedullary limb lengthening has become a viable alternative to traditional external systems. We retrospectively analyzed the use of an intramedullary motorized nail (Fitbone) in a consecutive series of 32 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During the period September 2006 to December 2008, 32 consecutive patients with a median age of 17 (IQR: 15–19) years were treated with a fully implantable, motorized intramedullary lengthening device (Fitbone). The median leg length discrepancy was 35 (IQR: 30–44) mm at the femur (n = 21) and 28 (IQR: 25–30) mm at the tibia (n = 11). RESULTS: Leg lengthening was successful in 30 of 32 cases, with no residual relevant discrepancy (± 5 mm). No intraoperative complications were observed. The consolidation index was significantly different (p = 0.04) between femoral lengthening (mean 35 days/cm) and tibial lengthening (mean 48 days/cm) but did not depend on age older/younger than 16 or previous operations at the affected site. 3 problems, 3 obstacles, and 4 complications (3 minor, 1 major) were encountered in 8 patients, 5 of which were implant-associated. INTERPRETATION: This technique even allows correction in patients with multiplanar deformities. Compared to external devices, intramedullary systems provide comfort and reduce complication rates, give improved cosmetic results, and lead to fast rehabilitation since percutaneous, transmuscular fixation is prevented. This results in reasonable overall treatment costs despite the relatively high costs of implants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3235314
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32353142011-12-16 Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients Krieg, Andreas H Lenze, Ulrich Speth, Bernhard M Hasler, Carol C Acta Orthop Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the last decade, intramedullary limb lengthening has become a viable alternative to traditional external systems. We retrospectively analyzed the use of an intramedullary motorized nail (Fitbone) in a consecutive series of 32 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During the period September 2006 to December 2008, 32 consecutive patients with a median age of 17 (IQR: 15–19) years were treated with a fully implantable, motorized intramedullary lengthening device (Fitbone). The median leg length discrepancy was 35 (IQR: 30–44) mm at the femur (n = 21) and 28 (IQR: 25–30) mm at the tibia (n = 11). RESULTS: Leg lengthening was successful in 30 of 32 cases, with no residual relevant discrepancy (± 5 mm). No intraoperative complications were observed. The consolidation index was significantly different (p = 0.04) between femoral lengthening (mean 35 days/cm) and tibial lengthening (mean 48 days/cm) but did not depend on age older/younger than 16 or previous operations at the affected site. 3 problems, 3 obstacles, and 4 complications (3 minor, 1 major) were encountered in 8 patients, 5 of which were implant-associated. INTERPRETATION: This technique even allows correction in patients with multiplanar deformities. Compared to external devices, intramedullary systems provide comfort and reduce complication rates, give improved cosmetic results, and lead to fast rehabilitation since percutaneous, transmuscular fixation is prevented. This results in reasonable overall treatment costs despite the relatively high costs of implants. Informa Healthcare 2011-06 2011-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3235314/ /pubmed/21561309 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.584209 Text en Copyright: © Nordic Orthopaedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Article
Krieg, Andreas H
Lenze, Ulrich
Speth, Bernhard M
Hasler, Carol C
Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients
title Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients
title_full Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients
title_fullStr Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients
title_full_unstemmed Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients
title_short Intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: Indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients
title_sort intramedullary leg lengthening with a motorized nail: indications, challenges, and outcome in 32 patients
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3235314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21561309
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.584209
work_keys_str_mv AT kriegandreash intramedullaryleglengtheningwithamotorizednailindicationschallengesandoutcomein32patients
AT lenzeulrich intramedullaryleglengtheningwithamotorizednailindicationschallengesandoutcomein32patients
AT spethbernhardm intramedullaryleglengtheningwithamotorizednailindicationschallengesandoutcomein32patients
AT haslercarolc intramedullaryleglengtheningwithamotorizednailindicationschallengesandoutcomein32patients