[A comparative study on effectiveness of closed reduction and internal fixation of intertrochanteric fracture assisted with skeletal tractor and traction table]

[Comparison of effectiveness of lower extremity axial distractor and traction table assisted closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation in femoral subtrochanteric fracture]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of lower extremity axial distractor (LEAD) and traction table assisted closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation in treatment of femoral subtrochanteric fracture.

Methods

The clinical data of 117 patients with subtrochanteric fracture of femur treated by closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation between May 2012 and May 2022 who met the selection criteria were retrospectively analyzed. According to the auxiliary reduction tools used during operation, the patients were divided into LEAD group (62 cases with LEAD reduction) and traction table group (55 cases with traction table reduction). There was no significant difference in baseline data, such as gender, age, injured side, cause of injury, fracture Seinsheimer classification, time from injury to operation, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, between the two groups ( P>0.05). Total incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy frequency, closed reduction rate, fracture reduction quality, fracture healing time, weight-bearing activity time, and incidence of complications, as well as hip flexion and extension range of motion (ROM), Harris score, and VAS score at 1 month and 6 months after operation and last follow-up were recorded and compared between the two groups.

Results

There were 14 cases in the LEAD group from closed reduction to limited open reduction, and 43 cases in the traction table group. The incisions in the LEAD group healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve and vascular injury occurred during operation. In the traction table group, 3 cases had perineal crush injury, which recovered spontaneously in 1 week. The total incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy frequency, and closed reduction rate in the LEAD group were significantly better than those in the traction table group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the quality of fracture reduction between the two groups ( P>0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-44 months, with an average of 15.8 months. In the LEAD group, 1 patient had delayed fracture union at 6 months after operation, 1 patient had nonunion at 3 years after operation, and 1 patient had incision sinus pus flow at 10 months after operation. In the traction table group, there was 1 patient with fracture nonunion at 15 months after operation. X-ray films of the other patients in the two groups showed that the internal fixator was fixed firmly without loosening and the fractures healed. There was no significant difference in fracture healing time, weight bearing activity time, incidence of complications, and postoperative hip flexion and extension ROM, Harris score, and VAS score at different time points between the two groups ( P>0.05).

Conclusion

For femoral subtrochanteric fracture treated by close reduction and intramedullary nail fixation, compared with traction table, LEAD assisted fracture reduction can significantly shorten the operation time, reduce intraoperative blood loss and fluoroscopy frequency, reduce incision length, effectively improve the success rate of closed reduction, and avoid complications related to traction table reduction. It provides a new method for good reduction of femoral subtrochanteric fracture.

Is the traction table necessary to treat femoral fractures with intramedullary nailing? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The traction table is generally used in femoral intramedullary nailing surgery. Recently, some published studies have shown that the same or better treatment effects can be gotten without a traction table. It remains no consensus on this issue.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was applied in this study. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for eligible studies. The random-effect model was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios with 95% CIs. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to verify the results.

RESULTS

The pooled estimates of seven studies, including 266 cases each in the manual traction group and traction table group, indicated that manual traction could shorten operative time [SMD, - 0.77; 95% CI (- 0.98, - 0.55); P < 0.00001] and preoperative set-up time [SMD, - 2.37; 95% CI (- 3.90, - 0.84); P = 0.002], but it would not reduce intraoperative blood loss volume and fluoroscopy time. No statistical difference was found in their fracture healing time, postoperative Harris scores, and malunion rate. The use of a Traction repositor could reduce the set-up time [SMD, - 2.48; 95% CI (- 4.91, - 0.05); P < 0.00001].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with manual traction, the traction table in femoral intramedullary nailing surgery lengthened operative time and preoperative set-up time. At the same time, it did not show significant advantages in reducing blood loss volume and fluoroscopy time, or improving prognosis. In clinical practice, the optimal surgical plan must be made on a case-by-case basis to avoid unnecessary traction table use.

Whether Assisted Intramedullary Nail Implantation Without Traction Table is as Safe and Effective as Using Traction Table of Older Intertrochanteric Fracture Patients?

Purpose

Despite promising clinical outcome proposals, there has been relatively little published regarding the use of traction table-assisted intramedullary nail implantation for intertrochanteric fractures. The purpose of this study is to further summarize and evaluate published clinical studies comparing the clinical outcomes of using traction table and without traction table in the management of intertrochanteric fracture.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was systematically performed to evaluate all studies included in the literature up to May 2022. The search terms included "intertrochanteric fractures", "hip fractures", and "traction table" with Boolean operators "AND" and "OR". The following information was extracted and summarized: demographic information, setup time, surgical time, amount of bleeding, fluoroscopy exposure time, reduction quality, and Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Results

A total of eight clinical controlled studies involving 620 patients were eligible for the review. The mean age at the time of injury was 75.3 years (traction table group 75.7 years, non-traction table group 74.9 years). The most common assisted intramedullary nail implantation method of non-traction table group included lateral decubitus position (4 studies), traction repositor, (3 studies) and manual traction (1 studies). Included studies results all support that there was no difference between the two groups in terms of reduction quality and Harris Hip Score, and the non-traction table group had an advantage in terms of setup time. However, there were still disputes in terms of surgical time, amount of bleeding and fluoroscopy exposure time.

Conclusion

For patients with intertrochanteric fractures, assisting intramedullary nail implantation without traction table is as safe and effective as using traction table and doing so without a traction table may be more advantageous in terms of setup time.