The management of aseptic nonunion of femoral shaft fractures after interlocking intramedullary nailing

Effectiveness and safety of augmentative plating technique in managing nonunion following intramedullary nailing of long bones in the lower extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To methodically assess the effectiveness of augmentative plating (AP) and exchange nailing (EN) in managing nonunion following intramedullary nailing for long bone fractures of the lower extremity.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to gather clinical studies regarding the use of AP and EN techniques in the treatment of nonunion following intramedullary nailing of lower extremity long bones. The search was conducted up until May 2023. The original studies underwent an independent assessment of their quality, a process conducted utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were retrieved from these studies, and meta-analysis was executed utilizing Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 8 studies involving 661 participants, with 305 in the AP group and 356 in the EN group. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that the AP group exhibited a higher rate of union (odds ratio: 8.61, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 4.12 - 17.99, p < 0.001), shorter union time (standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.08, 95 % CI: -1.79 - -0.37, p = 0.003), reduced duration of the surgical procedure (SMD: -0.56, 95 % CI: -0.93 - -0.19, p = 0.003), less bleeding (SMD: -1.5, 95 % CI: -2.81 - -0.18), p = 0.03), and a lower incidence of complications (relative risk: -0.17, 95 % CI: -0.27 - -0.06, p = 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the time for union in the AP group in nonisthmal and isthmal nonunion of lower extremity long bones was shorter compared to the EN group (nonisthmal SMD: -1.94, 95 % CI: -3.28 - -0.61, p < 0.001; isthmal SMD: -1.08, 95 % CI: -1.64 - -0.52, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of nonunion in diaphyseal fractures of the long bones in the lower extremity, the AP approach is superior to EN, both intraoperatively (with reduced duration of the surgical procedure and diminished blood loss) and postoperatively (with an elevated union rate, shorter union time, and lower incidence of complications). Specifically, in the management of nonunion of lower extremity long bones with non-isthmal and isthmal intramedullary nails, AP demonstrated shorter union time in comparison to EN.

Results of a simple treatment protocol for aseptic femoral shaft nonunion in 330 patients

INTRODUCTION

Our primary aim of the study was to assess the results of a treatment protocol for aseptic femoral shaft nonunion treated by three techniques - Exchange Nailing (EN), Plate Augmentation (PA), and Exchange Nailing combined with Plate augmentation (NP). The secondary objective was to assess the radiological outcome, duration of surgery (DOS) and need for blood transfusion (BT) in all the three groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 330 patients treated for AFNU between Jan 2007 and Dec 2019. Using a simple treatment algorithm, EN, PA and NP were performed in 24,183 and 123 patients respectively. Patients in all the three groups were assessed for radiological-union (union rate and time to union), DOS and BT.

RESULTS

Of these 330 patients, 327 (99 %) patients achieved radiological union at a mean duration of 6.07 months. Union rate is highest with NP followed by PA and EN. The union rate in patients with NP, PA and EN were 100 %, 99.5 % and 91.7 % respectively (p < 0.01). Time to union was lowest for NP followed by PA and EN (p < 0.001).The mean time to union for NP, PA and EN were 3.76, 7.2and 9.21 months respectively (p < 0.001). The mean DOS in minutes for NP, EN and PA was 107, 94 and 82 respectively (p < 0.01). The mean need for BT in the form of packed red blood cells for NP, PA and EN were 1.95, 1.87 and 1.38 units respectively (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Following a simple algorithm to decide treatment protocol on a case-to case basis helps to achieve good results in an optimal time period. When compared with EN and PA, NP is associated with 100 % union rate with least time to union making NP a reasonably effective procedure with a very high success rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The technique of "autologous bone grafting through channels" combined with double-plate fixation is effective treatment of femoral nonunion

PURPOSE

The aims of this retrospective study were to evaluate the effective treatment of femoral nonunion using the technique of "autologous bone grafting through channels" combined with double-plate fixation.

METHODS

In this study, 186 patients with nonunion fracture of femur who underwent surgery using the technique of "autologous bone grafting through channels" combined with double-plate fixation in Hong Hui Hospital from May 2010 to July 2020 were enrolled. Totally, 122 males and 64 females with mean age of 44 years were evaluated. These patients were evaluated for the full clinical and radiological union time, duration of follow-up, levels of post-operative limb shortening, and range of motion of adjacent joints, and incidence of serious complications.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 22 ± 6.2 months (range 12-44 months). Mean union time from surgery using our technique to full clinical and radiological union was 7.6 ± 1.2 months (range 4-9 months). All patients have achieved the union after one operation or two operations using the technique. The one-operation union rate is 98.4%. Post-operative severe complications were seen in seven patients which included deep vein thrombosis; the surgical site infection and the fracture nonunion. The range of motion in the adjacent joint of 17.7% (33/186) in all patients have an effect to the limb function. Six patients have the limb shortening more than 10 mm after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The technique of "autologous bone grafting through channels" combined with double-plate fixation is showed to be safe, effective, and easy to master and operate surgical option for treating the femoral nonunion.

Comparing Augmentative Plating and Exchange Nailing for the Treatment of Nonunion of Femoral Shaft Fracture after Intramedullary Nailing: A Meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta‐analysis was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of augmentative plating (AP) and exchange nailing (EN) in the treatment of nonunion of femoral shaft fracture.

Methods

For the present meta‐analysis, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant articles up to April 2019. Two investigators independently evaluated the quality of original publications following the guidelines proposed by the Cochrane Handbook. Data were extracted from the studies and analyzed using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Five studies were included in this meta‐analysis, with a total of 506 patients. There were 232 patients in the AP group and 276 patients in the EN group. The AP group was associated with higher union rate (OR, 11.66; 95% CI, 4.31–31.50; P < 0.01), shorter union time (SMD, −1.10; 95% CI, −2.09 to −0.11; P = 0.03), shorter operation time (SMD, −0.55; 95% CI, −0.88 to −0.21; P < 0.01), less blood loss (SMD, −1.72; 95% CI, −3.33 to −0.11; P < 0.01), and fewer complications (OR, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.16 to −0.07; P < 0.01) than the EN group.

Conclusion

The results of the meta‐analysis showed that AP is found to be superior for nonunion of femoral shaft fractures in both intraoperatively (ie, shorter operation time and less blood loss) and postoperatively (ie, higher union rate, shorter union time, and lower complication rate). Overall, AP was superior to EN in the treatment of nonunion of femoral shaft fractures after intramedullary nailing (IMN).

Exchange nailing versus augmentative plating in the treatment of femoral shaft nonunion after intramedullary nailing: a meta-analysis

With advances in the treatment of femoral shaft nonunion after intramedullary nailing, the optimal option remains controversial. This study aimed to quantitatively investigate outcomes in a comparison of exchange nailing and augmentative plating for femoral shaft nonunion after intramedullary nailing.

The EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane library and Clinical databases were systematically searched dating from their inception to March 2018. All retrospective controlled and prospective trials evaluating exchange nailing and augmentative plating for the treatment of femoral shaft nonunion after intramedullary nailing were identified. Two investigators extracted all related data independently and we used the review manager software to perform the meta-analysis.

Three studies with a total of 232 patients were eligible for data extraction in our study. The meta-analysis indicated that the augmentative plating group had a lower nonunion rate, shorter time to union, less intra-operative blood loss, and shorter operative time than the exchange nailing group. While for the infection rate, there was no significant difference between augmentative plating and exchange nailing group.

The available evidence has shown that augmentative plating is superior to exchange nailing for femoral shaft nonunion after intramedullary nailing.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:513-518. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180054

Systematic review of dynamization vs exchange nailing for delayed/non-union femoral fractures

AIM

To analyze the literature on efficacy of dynamamization vs exchange nailing in treatment of delayed and non-union femur fractures.

METHODS

Ultimately, 31 peer-reviewed articles with 644 exchanged nailing patients and 131 dynamization patients were identified and analyzed. The following key words were inputted in different combinations in order to search the field of publications in its entirety: “non-union”, “delayed union”, “ununited”, “femur fracture”, “femoral fracture”, “exchange nailing”, “dynaiz(s)ation”, “secondary nailing”, “dynamic”, “static”, and “nail revision”. The initial search yielded over 150 results, and was refined based on the inclusion criteria: Only studies reporting on humans, non-unions and delayed unions, and the usage of exchange nailing and/or dynamization as a secondary treatment after failed IM nailing. The resulting 66 articles were obtained through online journal access. The results were filtered further based on the exclusion criteria: No articles that failed to report overall union rates, differentiate between success rates of their reported techniques, or articles that analyzed less than 5 patients.

RESULTS

Exchange nailing lead to fracture union in 84.785% of patients compared to the 66.412% of dynamization with statistically comparable durations until union (5.193 ± 2.310 mo and 4.769 ± 1.986 mo respectively). Dynamically locking exchange nails resulted in an average union time of 5.208 ± 2.475 mo compared to 5.149 ± 2.366 mo (P = 0.8682) in statically locked exchange nails. The overall union rate of the two procedures, statically and dynamically locked exchange nailing yielded union rates of 84.259% and 82.381% respectively. Therefore, there was no significant difference between the different locking methods of exchange nailing for union rate or time to union at a significance value of P < 0.05. The analysis showed exchange nailing to be the more successful choice in the treatment of femoral non-unions in respect to its higher success rate (491/567 EN, 24/57 dynam, P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference between the success rates of the two procedures for delayed union fractures (25/27 EN, 45/55 dynam, P = 0.3299). Nevertheless, dynamization was more efficient in the treatment of delayed unions (at rates comparable to exchange nailing) than in the treatment of non-unions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, after examination of factors, dynamization is recommended treatment of delayed femur fractures, while exchange nailing is the treatment of choice for non-unions.