Cargando…

Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures

BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a hereditary genetic disorder characterized by bone fragility and extremity deformities. The surgical management for long-bone fractures and deformities in OI remains a challenge. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes after femoral surgery splinted with th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Hongjiang, Li, Bo, Xing, Cong, Gao, Shijie, Zhu, Wenbiao, Xiong, Yang, Ren, Xiuzhi, Ning, Guangzhi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9909911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36759791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06222-2
_version_ 1784884675104210944
author Yang, Hongjiang
Li, Bo
Xing, Cong
Gao, Shijie
Zhu, Wenbiao
Xiong, Yang
Ren, Xiuzhi
Ning, Guangzhi
author_facet Yang, Hongjiang
Li, Bo
Xing, Cong
Gao, Shijie
Zhu, Wenbiao
Xiong, Yang
Ren, Xiuzhi
Ning, Guangzhi
author_sort Yang, Hongjiang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a hereditary genetic disorder characterized by bone fragility and extremity deformities. The surgical management for long-bone fractures and deformities in OI remains a challenge. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes after femoral surgery splinted with the telescopic rod, the plate and screws, the elastic nail and the non-elongating rod in setting of OI. METHODS:  A retrospective cohort study included 783 femoral procedures (mean age 6.00 (interquartile range (IQR) 5.00) years, 335 (42.8%) females) was conducted, and individuals were categorized into four groups according to implants. After verifying comparability among the groups, revision rate and implant survival period were compared among the Sillence types and the same comparison were made among four groups within each Sillence type. The incidence of refractures, deformities, and implant-related complications were also compared among the four groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographic information among the four groups in terms of sex (p = 0.101), laterality (p = 0.587), Sillence type (p = 0.122), and postoperative follow-up period (p = 0.214). In total, children with Sillence type III had the highest revision rate and the shortest implant survival period; children with Sillence type I had the lowest revision rate and the longest implant survival period; and children with Sillence type IV had the revision rate and the implant survival period between those observed in Sillence types I and III. In Sillence types III and IV, the telescopic rod had lower revision rate (III 24.8%; IV 20.9%) compared to the plate (III 97.2%, p<0.001; IV 80.3%, p<0.001), the elastic nail (III 100.0%, p=0.019; IV 73.9%, p<0.001) and the non-elongating rod (III 65.0%, p<0.001; IV46.9%, p<0.001); the median implant survival period of the telescopic rod (III 48.00 (IQR 28.50) months; IV 43.00 (33.00) months) is longer than the plate (III 11.00 (9.00) months, p<0.001; IV 19.00 (20.00) months, p<0.001), the elastic nail (III 45.00 (37.75) months, p=1.000; IV 19.00 (35.00) months, p=0.028) and the non-elongating rod (III 39.00 (31.75) months, p=0.473; IV 38.50 (29.75) months, p=1.000).A similar trend was observed in Sillence type I (p = 0.063, p = 0.003; respectively). In addition, the incidence of refracture (15.5%), deformity (2.8%) and implant-related complications (23.1%) were also statistically lower in the telescopic rod group. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, lower revision rate and longer implant survival period were observed in telescopic rod group. This was mainly due to the significant lower incidence of refracture, deformity and implant-related complications with the use of telescopic rod. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06222-2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9909911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99099112023-02-10 Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures Yang, Hongjiang Li, Bo Xing, Cong Gao, Shijie Zhu, Wenbiao Xiong, Yang Ren, Xiuzhi Ning, Guangzhi BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a hereditary genetic disorder characterized by bone fragility and extremity deformities. The surgical management for long-bone fractures and deformities in OI remains a challenge. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes after femoral surgery splinted with the telescopic rod, the plate and screws, the elastic nail and the non-elongating rod in setting of OI. METHODS:  A retrospective cohort study included 783 femoral procedures (mean age 6.00 (interquartile range (IQR) 5.00) years, 335 (42.8%) females) was conducted, and individuals were categorized into four groups according to implants. After verifying comparability among the groups, revision rate and implant survival period were compared among the Sillence types and the same comparison were made among four groups within each Sillence type. The incidence of refractures, deformities, and implant-related complications were also compared among the four groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographic information among the four groups in terms of sex (p = 0.101), laterality (p = 0.587), Sillence type (p = 0.122), and postoperative follow-up period (p = 0.214). In total, children with Sillence type III had the highest revision rate and the shortest implant survival period; children with Sillence type I had the lowest revision rate and the longest implant survival period; and children with Sillence type IV had the revision rate and the implant survival period between those observed in Sillence types I and III. In Sillence types III and IV, the telescopic rod had lower revision rate (III 24.8%; IV 20.9%) compared to the plate (III 97.2%, p<0.001; IV 80.3%, p<0.001), the elastic nail (III 100.0%, p=0.019; IV 73.9%, p<0.001) and the non-elongating rod (III 65.0%, p<0.001; IV46.9%, p<0.001); the median implant survival period of the telescopic rod (III 48.00 (IQR 28.50) months; IV 43.00 (33.00) months) is longer than the plate (III 11.00 (9.00) months, p<0.001; IV 19.00 (20.00) months, p<0.001), the elastic nail (III 45.00 (37.75) months, p=1.000; IV 19.00 (35.00) months, p=0.028) and the non-elongating rod (III 39.00 (31.75) months, p=0.473; IV 38.50 (29.75) months, p=1.000).A similar trend was observed in Sillence type I (p = 0.063, p = 0.003; respectively). In addition, the incidence of refracture (15.5%), deformity (2.8%) and implant-related complications (23.1%) were also statistically lower in the telescopic rod group. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, lower revision rate and longer implant survival period were observed in telescopic rod group. This was mainly due to the significant lower incidence of refracture, deformity and implant-related complications with the use of telescopic rod. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06222-2. BioMed Central 2023-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9909911/ /pubmed/36759791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06222-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 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
Yang, Hongjiang
Li, Bo
Xing, Cong
Gao, Shijie
Zhu, Wenbiao
Xiong, Yang
Ren, Xiuzhi
Ning, Guangzhi
Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures
title Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures
title_full Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures
title_fullStr Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures
title_full_unstemmed Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures
title_short Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures
title_sort which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9909911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36759791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06222-2
work_keys_str_mv AT yanghongjiang whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures
AT libo whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures
AT xingcong whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures
AT gaoshijie whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures
AT zhuwenbiao whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures
AT xiongyang whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures
AT renxiuzhi whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures
AT ningguangzhi whichisthebestfemoralimplantinchildrenwithosteogenesisimperfectaaretrospectivecohortstudyof783procedures