Fracture on removal of the ACE tibial nail

A systematic review of nerve grafting, end-to-end repair, and nerve transfer for obturator nerve injuries

OBJECTIVE

Obturator nerve injury can occur as a complication of gynecologic surgeries, occurring most frequently in patients with endometriosis and genitourinary malignancies. The resulting injury causes paresthesia and major weakness in adduction and atrophy of the adductor group of lower extremity muscles. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of end-to-end repair, nerve grafting, and nerve transfer in improving motor function in patients with obturator nerve injury.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and Embase libraries were searched from May 1994 to August 2020 according to the PRISMA guidelines for articles that present functional outcomes after obturator nerve injury in patients treated with nerve grafting, end-to-end repair, or nerve transfer.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients from 22 studies were included in the study, 15 of whom were treated with end-to-end repair (60%), nine with nerve grafting (36%), and one with nerve transfer (4%). Of the 15 patients with transection data, two had incomplete (13%) and 13 had complete (87%) nerve transections. The patients underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy (n=24) and radical cystectomy (n=1) operations. The mean Medical Research Council (MRC) score was 2.95±1.7 immediately after treatment and 4.77±0.6 at the final follow-up. All patients achieved good outcomes (MRC ≥3) at the final follow-up. The mean MRC score for end-to-end repair (n=15), nerve grafting (n=9), and nerve transfer (n=1) was 4.8±0.6, 4.7±0.8, and 5, respectively. Patients with end-to-end repair had higher immediate post-operative strength than those treated with nerve grafting (p=0.03) and tended to achieve full functional recovery after shorter periods of time (rho=-0.65, p=0.049). Other parameters did not correlate with MRC.

CONCLUSION

End-to-end repair, nerve grafting, and nerve transfer are equally effective in restoring function in patients with obturator nerve injury. However, patients treated with end-to-end repair had higher immediate post-operative strength than those treated with nerve grafting.

Recommendation of use of checklists in tibial intramedullary nail removal: Retrospective study of mechanical complications related to nail removal

BACKGROUND

The removal of implants such as intramedullary nails is one of the most common operations in orthopedic surgery. The indications for orthopedic implants removal will always remain a subject of conversation and hardly supported by literature. The aim of this study to report injuries of treatment in tibial nail removal and to determine if there are fracture characteristics, patient demographics, or surgical details that may predict a complication.

METHODS

This is a retrospective seven-year (2010-2016) study including a total of 389 tibial intramedullary nail removals at the Helsinki University Hospital's orthopedic unit. Patients with tibial fracture and removal of intramedullary nail were identified from the hospital discharge register and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 21 (5,4%) nail removal related mechanical complications (iatrogenic fractures, nerve injuries, failures to remove the nail) were noted. The most common complication was iatrogenic fracture (n = 15, 3,8%). In 6/15 cases the fracture was caused by broken interlocking screws, In 5/15 cases the iatrogenic fracture was caused accidentally by extracting the nail without prior removal of all distal interlocking screws. In one case, new condensed bone had formed around the nail's distal end and case the forced nail extraction caused a re-fracture in both tibia and fibula.

CONCLUSION

Nail removal can be a challenging operation which does not always receive the necessary preoperative planning or operative expertise. Iatrogenic fractures were most often caused by inadequate preoperative planning or assuming that a broken interlocking screw tilts during the extraction. We suggest the use of checklists in preoperative planning to avoid fractures caused by broken or undetected interlocking screws.

Easy and Inexpensive Technique for Removal of Round Headed, Jammed Locking Screws in Distal Tibial Interlocking Plate

Introduction:

The advent of locking plates has brought new problems in implant removal. Difficulty in removing screws from a locking plate is well-known. These difficulties include cold welding between the screw head and locking screw hole, stripping of the recess of the screw head for the screwdriver, and cross-threading between threads in the screw head and screw hole. However, there are cases in which removal is difficult. We describe a new technique for removing a round headed, jammed locking screws from a locking plate.

Case Report:

55 years old male patient received a locking distal tibial plate along with distal fibular plate 3years back from UAE. Now patient came with complaint of non-healing ulcer over medial aspect of lower 1/3rd of right leg from past 1 year. Non operative management did not improve the symptoms. The patient consented to implant removal, with the express understanding that implant removal might be impossible because already one failed attempt had been performed at some other hospital six months back. We then decided to proceed with the new technique. The rest of the proximal screws were removed using a technique not previously described. We used stainless steel metal cutting blades that are used to cut door locks or pad locks to cut the remaining stripped headed screws.

Conclusion:

This technique is very quick, easy to perform and inexpensive because the metal cutting blades which are used to cut the screws are very cheap. Yet it is very effective technique to remove the stripped headed or jammed locking screws. It is also very less destructive because of very less heat production during the procedure there is no problem of thermal necrosis to the bone or the surrounding soft tissue.

Topographical relationships between the obturator nerve, artery, and vein in the lateral pelvic wall

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aims of this study were to determine the topographical relationships between the obturator nerve (ON), artery (OA), and vein (OV) in the lateral pelvic wall.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty hemipelvises of 84 Korean cadavers were dissected.

RESULTS

The ON, OA, and OV ran in that order (from upper to lower) within the lateral pelvic wall in 46.7 % of specimens. In 32 % of cases, the three structures were separated at the posterior portion of the wall and then converged toward the obturator canal (OC). In 10 %, the OA and OV were in contact with each other and separate from the ON; in 2 %, the ON was contiguous with the OA and separate from the OV; in 2.7 %, all three structures were in contact with each another. Alternately, the order of ON, OA, and OV was altered in the lateral pelvic wall in 41.3 % of specimens. Finally, in 12 % specimens, either the OA or OV or both were absent from the lateral pelvic wall.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of the presence of either the OA or OV being between the ON and the external iliac vein, and the potential contact between the ON and either the OA or OV in the lateral pelvic wall, should be borne in mind during pelvic procedures.

Tibial intramedullary nails -- should they be removed? A retrospective study of 71 patients

BACKGROUND

Anterior knee pain and young age of the patient have been considered justification for removal of a tibial intramedullary nail. There have been few reports on the outcome after nail removal, however.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied 71 patients in whom 72 tibial nails had been removed. We used self-assess-ment questionnaires to evaluate the location, intensity, and frequency of pain before and after removal. The degree of satisfaction was scored on a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

39 of 71 patients had less pain after removal of the nail, but were not asymptomatic. 14 patients had unaltered pain, and 18 patients had increased pain. 4 of 6 patients who had been treated with fasciotomy were not satisfied with the outcome of nail removal.

INTERPRETATION

The results of nail removal to alleviate pain are poor. Removal of a nail should not be undertaken unless there is a convincing indication.

Complications associated with the use of a titanium tibial nail

Intramedullary nailing is the treatment of choice for unstable or displaced tibial fractures. Titanium nails have been advocated for their improved biocompatibility and biomechanical properties but concerns are held about increased complications. We present results of 225 tibial fractures in 221 patients (90% follow-up) treated with the ACE titanium tibial nail (DePuy International Limited, Leeds, UK) inserted between 1995 and 2003 in one hospital department, which show no increased complications compared with the published literature. Eighty-two percent of the patients were male with a median age of 33 years. The mechanism of injury was RTA (52%), Sport (22%) and other (26%). Forty-one percent of the fractures were open. The general complication rate represents the published literature whereas only 32% patients developed knee pain compared with the 40-57% previously reported. Median union time was unaffected by open injury, reaming or age. Ninety (43.3%) patients required re-operation of which 23 (11%) had a second re-operation. In total 43 (20.7%) nails were removed, without any complication as previously reported for this nail.

Hardware removal: indications and expectations

Although hardware removal is commonly done, it should not be considered a routine procedure. The decision to remove hardware has significant economic implications, including the costs of the procedure as well as possible work time lost for postoperative recovery. The clinical indications for implant removal are not well established. There are few definitive data to guide whether implant removal is appropriate. Implant removal may be challenging and lead to complications, such as neurovascular injury, refracture, or recurrence of deformity. When implants are removed for pain relief alone, the results are unpredictable and depend on both the implant type and its anatomic location. Current literature does not support the routine removal of implants to protect against allergy, carcinogenesis, or metal detection. Surgeons and patients should be aware of appropriate indications and have realistic expectations of the risks and benefits of implant removal.

Difficulties in removing ACE tibial intramedullary nail

We experienced three cases of refracture and two cases of failure to remove the nail while trying to take out ACE tibial nails from healed tibial fractures. In order to determine the risk factors associated with difficulties in nail removal, these five patients were compared in the parameters of age, gender, duration of nail in situ, nail diameter, nail length, and level of fracture with 30 patients who had uneventful removal. Younger age of the patient was significantly associated with the difficulty in nail removal.

Failure on attempted removal of a Gamma nail in two young patients

We experienced failures in attempting to remove a Gamma nail and a long Gamma nail, both of which were used for fixation of a subtrochanteric fracture in two young patients. We suspect that new bone forms in the notch, which is located beneath the screw thread in the lag screw, and causes jamming of the lag screw in young patients after fracture consolidation.

Tibial fracture during removal of a tibial intramedullary nail

SUMMARY

As tibial intramedullary nailing becomes the preferred treatment for tibial shaft fracture, removal of tibial nails will become more common. Removal of tibial intramedullary nails is not without complications, but a review of the literature found only one recent report of a fracture of the tibia during removal. A case report of a tibial fracture during removal of an Alta tibial nail is presented.