Does Intramedullary Nail Fixation of the Tibia Pose the Same Risk of Pulmonary Complications as Intramedullary Nail Fixation of the Femur? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Outcomes of simultaneous versus staged intramedullary nailing fixation of multiple long bone lower extremity fractures

INTRODUCTION

Repair of multiple lower extremity long bone fractures with intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation is associated with significant cardiopulmonary burden and may result in mortality. These patients are at an increased risk for fat embolism syndrome, pulmonary embolism, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), and pneumonia. No standardized guidelines exist to guide treatment of these patients. Further, there is a paucity of data regarding the risk of simultaneous versus staged fixation of multiple long bone fractures that includes both tibial and femoral injuries, as patients with multiple concomitant fractures are often excluded from relevant analyses. Our level one trauma center aimed to identify whether simultaneous fixation, defined by definitive fixation of multiple lower extremity long bone fractures during one operative event, led to increased cardiopulmonary complications as compared to a staged approach, defined as multiple operations to reach definitive fixation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program (MTQIP) database from 35 Level I and II trauma centers was queried to identify patients from January 2016 - December 2019. The primary outcome was incidence of cardiopulmonary complications for staged and simultaneous IMN fixation.

RESULTS

We identified 11,427 patients with tibial and/or femoral fractures during the study period. 146 patients met the inclusion criteria of two or more fractures treated with IMN fixation. 118 patients underwent simultaneous IMN fixation, and 28 patients received staged IMN fixation. There were no significant differences in injury severity score (ISS), demographics, pre-existing conditions, and cardiopulmonary complications between the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference in hospital length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.0012). The median hospital LOS for simultaneous fixation was 8.3 days versus 15.8 days for the staged cohort, a difference of 7.5 days.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest retrospective study to date examining simultaneous versus staged IMN fixation in patients with multiple long bone lower extremity fractures. In contrast to previous studies, we found no difference in cardiopulmonary complications. Given these findings, patients with multiple long bone lower extremity fractures should be considered for simultaneous IMN, an approach which may decrease hospital LOS.

Risk of Postoperative Sciatic Nerve Palsy After Posterior Acetabular Fracture Fixation: Does Patient Position Matter?

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the prone or lateral position is associated with postoperative sciatic nerve palsy in posterior acetabular fracture fixation.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Three Level I trauma centers.

PATIENTS

Patients with acetabular fractures treated with a posterior approach (n = 1045).

INTERVENTION

Posterior acetabular fixation in the prone or lateral positions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the prevalence of postoperative sciatic nerve palsy by position. Secondary outcomes were risk factors for nerve palsy, using multiple regression analysis and propensity scoring.

RESULTS

The rate of postoperative sciatic nerve palsy was 9.5% (43/455) in the prone position and 1.5% (9/590) in the lateral position ( P < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss and surgical duration were significantly higher for patients who developed a postoperative sciatic nerve palsy. Subgroup analysis showed that position did not influence palsy prevalence in posterior wall fractures. For other fracture patterns, propensity score analysis demonstrated a significantly increased odds ratio of palsy in the prone position [aOR 7.14 (2.22-23.00); P = 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of posterior wall fracture patterns, the results of this study suggest that factors associated with increased risk for postoperative sciatic nerve palsy after a posterior approach are fractures treated in the prone position, increased blood loss, and prolonged operative duration. These risks should be considered alongside the other goals (eg, reduction quality) of acetabular fracture surgery when choosing surgical positioning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Intramedullary nailing of concurrent ipsilateral fractures of the tibia and femur: primary synchronous nailing versus staged osteosynthesis with temporizing external fixation

INTRODUCTION

The optimal timing to definitive osteosynthesis in the polytraumatized patient remains an unanswered question. Early total care, damage control orthopaedics, and early appropriate care have been described to manage the fractures in these patients, but there is a paucity of literature specific to ipsilateral tibial and femoral fractures. We sought the perioperative outcomes of primary simultaneous intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus temporizing external fixation (EF) of both fractures.

METHODS

A chart review of all patients who sustained fractures of the ipsilateral femur and tibia that were definitively treated with (IMN) from January 2010 to December 2020 was performed. Patients who underwent initial EF and those that were primarily treated with IMNs were examined.

RESULTS

IMNs and EF were the initial treatment in 23 and 16 patients, respectively. The mean (range) injury severity score (ISS) was 23.3 (33) in the EF group vs. 18.5 (34) in the IMN group, (p = 0.0686). The EF group had a higher total transfused units of packed red blood cells 7.4 vs. 2.8, the mean initial operative time was 236 vs. 282.6 (min), (p = 0.7399), a longer mean total operative time 601.78 vs. 236 (min), and longer mean length of stay 15.6 vs. 11 (days), (p < 0.5). Rates of complications were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

Primary IMN is as safe as provisional EF in the adequately resuscitated patient with ipsilateral femoral and tibial fractures. This implies the fixation of both fractures into a single surgery without increasing perioperative complications, and decreasing total hospital stay in patients with sufficient preoperative resuscitation.

Quantitative Evaluation of Embolic Load in Femoral and Tibial Shaft Fractures Treated With Reamed Intramedullary Fixation

OBJECTIVES

To compare the volume of embolic load during intramedullary fixation of femoral and tibial shaft fractures. Our hypothesis was that tibial intramedullary nails (IMNs) would be associated with less volume of intravasation of marrow than IM nailing of femur fractures.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Urban Level I trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three patients consented for the study: 14 with femoral shaft fractures and 9 with tibial shaft fractures.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent continuous transesophageal echocardiography, and volume of embolic load was evaluated during 5 distinct stages: postinduction, initial guide wire, reaming (REAM), nail insertion, and postoperative.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Volume of embolic load was measured based on previously described luminosity scores. The embolic load based on fracture location and procedure stage was evaluated using a mixed effects model.

RESULTS

The IMN procedure increased the embolic load by 215% (-12% to 442%, P = 0.07) in femur patients relative to tibia patients after adjusting for baseline levels. Of the 5 steps measured, REAM was associated with the greatest increase in embolic load relative to the guide wire placement and controlling for fracture location (421%, 95% confidence interval: 169%-673%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral shaft IMN fixation was associated with a 215% increase in embolic load in comparison with tibial shaft IMN fixation, with the greatest quantitative load during the REAM stage; however, both procedures produce embolic load.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.