Cargando…

Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure

INTRODUCTION: Intramedullary (IM) fixation is the dominant treatment for pertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. In comparison to plate osteosynthesis (PO), IM fixation offers greater biomechanical stability and reduced non-union rates. Due to the minimally invasive nature, IM fixations are les...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bäcker, Henrik C., Heyland, Mark, Wu, Chia H., Perka, Carsten, Stöckle, Ulrich, Braun, Karl F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8756694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35027077
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00630-7
_version_ 1784632612600414208
author Bäcker, Henrik C.
Heyland, Mark
Wu, Chia H.
Perka, Carsten
Stöckle, Ulrich
Braun, Karl F.
author_facet Bäcker, Henrik C.
Heyland, Mark
Wu, Chia H.
Perka, Carsten
Stöckle, Ulrich
Braun, Karl F.
author_sort Bäcker, Henrik C.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Intramedullary (IM) fixation is the dominant treatment for pertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. In comparison to plate osteosynthesis (PO), IM fixation offers greater biomechanical stability and reduced non-union rates. Due to the minimally invasive nature, IM fixations are less prone to approach-associated complications, such as soft-tissue damage, bleeding or postoperative infection, but they are more prone to fat embolism. A rare but serious complication, however, is implant failure. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify possible risk factors for intramedullary fixation (IMF) and plate osteosynthesis (PO) failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched our trauma surgery database for implant failure, intramedullary and plate osteosynthesis, after proximal—pertrochanteric, subtrochanteric—or femoral shaft fractures between 2011 and 2019. Implant failures in both the IMF and PO groups were included. Demographic data, fracture type, quality of reduction, duration between initial implantation and nail or plate failure, the use of cerclages, intraoperative microbiological samples, sonication, and, if available, histology were collected. RESULTS: A total of 24 femoral implant failures were identified: 11 IMFs and 13 POs. The average age of patients in the IM group was 68.2 ± 13.5 years and in the PO group was 65.6 ± 15.0 years, with men being affected in 63.6% and 39.5% of cases, respectively. A proximal femoral nail (PFN) anti-rotation was used in 7 patients, a PFN in one and a gamma nail in two patients. A total of 6 patients required cerclage wires for additional stability. A combined plate and intramedullary fixation was chosen in one patient. Initially, all intramedullary nails were statically locked. Failures were observed 34.1 weeks after the initial surgery on average. Risk factors for implant failure included the application of cerclage wires at the level of the fracture (n = 5, 21%), infection (n = 2, 8%), and the use of an additional sliding screw alongside the femoral neck screw (n = 3, 13%). In all patients, non-union was diagnosed radiographically and clinically after 6 months (n = 24, 100%). In the event of PO failure, the placement of screws within all screw holes, and interprosthetic fixation were recognised as the major causes of failure. CONCLUSION: Intramedullary or plate osteosynthesis remain safe and reliable procedures in the treatment of proximal femoral fractures (pertrochanteric, subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures). Nevertheless, the surgeon needs to be aware of several implant-related limitations causing implant breakage. These may include the application of tension band wiring which can lead to a too rigid fixation, or placement of cerclage wires at the fracture site.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8756694
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87566942022-01-18 Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure Bäcker, Henrik C. Heyland, Mark Wu, Chia H. Perka, Carsten Stöckle, Ulrich Braun, Karl F. Eur J Med Res Research INTRODUCTION: Intramedullary (IM) fixation is the dominant treatment for pertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. In comparison to plate osteosynthesis (PO), IM fixation offers greater biomechanical stability and reduced non-union rates. Due to the minimally invasive nature, IM fixations are less prone to approach-associated complications, such as soft-tissue damage, bleeding or postoperative infection, but they are more prone to fat embolism. A rare but serious complication, however, is implant failure. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify possible risk factors for intramedullary fixation (IMF) and plate osteosynthesis (PO) failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched our trauma surgery database for implant failure, intramedullary and plate osteosynthesis, after proximal—pertrochanteric, subtrochanteric—or femoral shaft fractures between 2011 and 2019. Implant failures in both the IMF and PO groups were included. Demographic data, fracture type, quality of reduction, duration between initial implantation and nail or plate failure, the use of cerclages, intraoperative microbiological samples, sonication, and, if available, histology were collected. RESULTS: A total of 24 femoral implant failures were identified: 11 IMFs and 13 POs. The average age of patients in the IM group was 68.2 ± 13.5 years and in the PO group was 65.6 ± 15.0 years, with men being affected in 63.6% and 39.5% of cases, respectively. A proximal femoral nail (PFN) anti-rotation was used in 7 patients, a PFN in one and a gamma nail in two patients. A total of 6 patients required cerclage wires for additional stability. A combined plate and intramedullary fixation was chosen in one patient. Initially, all intramedullary nails were statically locked. Failures were observed 34.1 weeks after the initial surgery on average. Risk factors for implant failure included the application of cerclage wires at the level of the fracture (n = 5, 21%), infection (n = 2, 8%), and the use of an additional sliding screw alongside the femoral neck screw (n = 3, 13%). In all patients, non-union was diagnosed radiographically and clinically after 6 months (n = 24, 100%). In the event of PO failure, the placement of screws within all screw holes, and interprosthetic fixation were recognised as the major causes of failure. CONCLUSION: Intramedullary or plate osteosynthesis remain safe and reliable procedures in the treatment of proximal femoral fractures (pertrochanteric, subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures). Nevertheless, the surgeon needs to be aware of several implant-related limitations causing implant breakage. These may include the application of tension band wiring which can lead to a too rigid fixation, or placement of cerclage wires at the fracture site. BioMed Central 2022-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8756694/ /pubmed/35027077 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00630-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Bäcker, Henrik C.
Heyland, Mark
Wu, Chia H.
Perka, Carsten
Stöckle, Ulrich
Braun, Karl F.
Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure
title Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure
title_full Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure
title_fullStr Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure
title_full_unstemmed Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure
title_short Breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure
title_sort breakage of intramedullary femoral nailing or femoral plating: how to prevent implant failure
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8756694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35027077
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00630-7
work_keys_str_mv AT backerhenrikc breakageofintramedullaryfemoralnailingorfemoralplatinghowtopreventimplantfailure
AT heylandmark breakageofintramedullaryfemoralnailingorfemoralplatinghowtopreventimplantfailure
AT wuchiah breakageofintramedullaryfemoralnailingorfemoralplatinghowtopreventimplantfailure
AT perkacarsten breakageofintramedullaryfemoralnailingorfemoralplatinghowtopreventimplantfailure
AT stockleulrich breakageofintramedullaryfemoralnailingorfemoralplatinghowtopreventimplantfailure
AT braunkarlf breakageofintramedullaryfemoralnailingorfemoralplatinghowtopreventimplantfailure