Dataset Information

Post-retrieval functionality testing of PRECICE lengthening nails: The "Sleeper" nail concept.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

PRECICE intramedullary magnetic lengthening nails, introduced in 2011, have changed the landscape of long bone limb lengthening. The implants have a stroke ranging from 5 to 8 cm, but it may be desirable to perform part of the lengthening at one treatment, allow bone healing, leave the implant in place, dormant, and then return one or more years later to re-lengthen with the same implant. We call this the "sleeper" nail concept. This strategy may be gentler for the joints and soft tissues. Would the nail mechanism still be functional one or more years later?

Methods

We tested 102 intact, consecutively explanted nails. Using a "fast magnet," the male part was lengthened to 5 mm short of its maximum stroke capacity and retracted back to 35 mm (all nails start with the male part exposed 30 mm). The nails passed the test if the male part succeeded in lengthening to 5 mm short of the maximum stroke capacity and back to 35 mm (or only retract in case fully deployed at testing). During our testing, the nails were prevented from reaching their full capacity of lengthening/retraction to avoid jamming the gears. Failure was defined as the inability or partial ability to complete the process.

Results

Eighty-six nails (84.3%) performed successfully according to our testing standard. When comparing successful and failed nails in terms of nail type, generation, diameter, length and in vivo interval, there was no statistical significance. Comparing both groups in terms of status at testing (fully deployed or not) showed statistical significance with 9 of the 16 failed nails fully deployed at testing (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Dormant PRECICE nails can be reactivated for further lengthening. The results imply that full deployment may damage the mechanism, making future re-use by retracting and then re-lengthening unsuccessful. The candidate nails for this purpose should not have any signs of clear damage (bending or breakage) and should not have been fully deployed. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the need for possible nail exchange if the "sleeper" nail fails to wake up.

Level of evidence

Level IV case series analysis of retrieved surgical implants.

SUBMITTER: Eltayeby HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7920018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBone lengthening with an internal lengthening nail (ILN) avoids the need for external fixation and requires one less surgical procedure than lengthening over a nail (LON). However, LON has been shown to be superior to femoral internal lengthening using a mechanical nail. The magnetic ILN, a remote-controlled and magnet-driven device, may have overcome the weaknesses of earlier internal lengthening technology and may be superior to LON.Questions/purposes(1) Is the magnetic ILN more accurate than LON for femoral lengthening? (2) Does the magnetic ILN demonstrate more precise distraction rate control than LON? (3) Does the magnetic ILN result in faster regenerate site healing, with more robust callus, than LON? (4) Does the magnetic ILN result in fewer complications, including impediments to knee motion, than LON?MethodsWe conducted a retrospective comparison of the records and radiographs of 21 consecutive patients with 22 femoral lengthenings using LONs and 35 consecutive patients with 40 femoral lengthenings using remote-controlled magnetic ILNs. Primary outcomes measured included accuracy, distraction rate precision, time to bony union, final knee range of motion, regenerate quality, and complications. The minimum follow-up times for the LON and ILN cohorts were 13 and 21 months, respectively.ResultsPatients treated with ILN had a lower post-treatment residual limb-length discrepancy (0.3 mm) than those treated with LON (3.6 mm). The rate of distraction was closer to the goal of 1 mm/day and more tightly controlled for the ILN cohort (1 mm/day) than that for the LON group (0.8 mm/day; SD, 0.2). Regenerate quality was not significantly different between the cohorts. Bone healing index for ILN was not statistically significant. Time to union was shorter in the ILN group (3.3 months) than that in the LON group (4.5 months). A lower percentage of patients experienced a complication in the ILN group (18%) than in the LON group (45%). Knee flexion at the end of distraction was greater for ILN patients (105°) than that for LON patients (88.8°), but this difference was no longer observed after 1 year.ConclusionsFemoral lengthening with magnetic ILN was more accurate than with LON. The magnetic ILN comports the additional advantage of greater precision with distraction rate control and fewer complications. Both techniques afford reliable healing and do not significantly affect knee motion at the final follow-up. The magnetic ILN method showed no superiority in regenerate quality and healing rate.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Different types of external fixators have been used for humeral lengthening with successful outcomes reported in literature. Motorized intramedullary (IM) lengthening nails have been developed as an alternative to external fixators for long bone lengthening in the lower extremity. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:This case series reports on using the new technology of IM lengthening nails for humeral lengthening. We assessed the radiological healing and functional outcomes after using the PRECICE IM nail for humeral lengthening. METHODS:This multicenter retrospective study included a total of six humeri in five patients (mean age was 20 years) that underwent lengthening with the magnetic IM PRECICE nail in two centers in the USA. The etiology was humeral growth arrest post-bone cyst (two segments), post-septic growth arrest (two segments), and multiple hereditary exostosis (bilateral segments in one patient). The outcomes measured were the length achieved, distraction index (DI; the length achieved in mm divided by the duration of lengthening in days), consolidation index (CI; number of days from surgery until consolidation divided by the length of the regenerate in cm), complications encountered, and functional outcomes (shoulder and elbow range of motion, the upper extremity functional index (UEFI), and QuickDASH functional scores). RESULTS:The mean follow-up period was 1.8 years (0.9 to 2.4 years). All segments achieved the goal of lengthening; the mean was 5.1 cm (4.5 to 5.8 cm). Mean DI was 0.7 mm/day (0.5 to 0.8). Mean CI was 36 days/cm (25 to 45 days/cm). No complications were observed. At the last follow-up, all patients maintained their preoperative range of motion (ROM) except one patient had reduced shoulder ROM. QuickDASH score and upper extremity functional index showed postoperative improvement compared to the preoperative scores. CONCLUSION:IM lengthening nails can provide successful and safe humeral lengthening. Specifically, the PRECICE nail has accurate control over the lengthening process.