Dataset Information

Regenerate bone fracture rate following femoral lengthening in paediatric patients.

ABSTRACT: Femoral lengthening using a circular or mono-lateral frame is a commonly used technique. Fracture at the site of the regenerate bone is a major concern especially following removal of the external fixator. This aim of this study was to assess the rate of fracture of the regenerate bone in this single surgeon series of paediatric patients and determine potential risk factors.Retrospective review of all the femoral lengthening performed by the senior author was performed. The medical and physiotherapy notes were reviewed. The gender, age at time of surgery, disease aetiology, total days in the external fixator and length of the new regenerate bone were recorded. Patients who sustained a regenerate fracture were identified.A total of 176 femoral lengthening procedures were performed on 108 patients. Eight regenerate fractures occurred in seven patients (4.5%). The mechanism of injury was a fall in five cases and during physiotherapy in three cases. The regenerate fracture occurred a median number of nine days following removal of frame. There was no significant difference between gender, age at time of surgery, total time in external fixator between those who sustained a regenerate fracture and those patients who did not. A significant difference was noted between the amount of lengthening between the 'regenerate fracture group' and the 'no fracture group' (50 mm vs 38 mm, respectively; p = 0.029). There was no association between disease aetiology and risk of regenerate fracture.Femoral lengthening of more than 50 mm increases the risk of a fracture at the regenerate site regardless of the disease aetiology. We recommend avoidance of aggressive physiotherapy for the initial four weeks following external fixator removal.

SUBMITTER: Burke NG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5548037 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) occurring during the course of osteoporosis treatment usually lead to discontinuation of anti-resorptive (AR) drugs. However, the risk of fracture after an AFF is unknown. We conducted a follow-up study of patients with AFF matched 1:3 for age and gender with patients with a peripheral major osteoporotic fracture (pMOF), in the setting of a fracture liaison service, to investigate the incidence of subsequent low-trauma fractures. Fifty-five patients with AFF (95% women, age [mean ± standard deviation] 75 ± 10 years, 89% exposed to AR drugs), followed for 6.2 ± 3.7 years, were compared to 165 matched controls with a pMOF (hip 85%) followed for 4.3 ± 2.6 years. During the follow-up, 38% of patients in the AFF group and 16% in the pMOF group received AR therapies. Continuation of AR drugs after an AFF was associated with contralateral AFF in 27% of subjects. The risks of new low-trauma, major osteoporotic and imminent (within 2 years) fractures, were similar between the two groups: incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) of subsequent fracture following AFF relative to pMOF, 1.30 (95% CI, 0.82-2.04), 1.28 (95% CI, 0.74-2.15), and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.54-2.15), respectively. Moreover, the risk of sustaining multiple fractures per participant was significantly increased among patients with AFF compared to pMOF (hazard ratio 1.48 [95% CI, 1.00-2.19]; p = 0.049). When taking mortality into account, the risk of subsequent fractures tended to be higher in the AFF group (sub-hazard ratio 1.42 [95% CI, 0.95-2.12]). In conclusion, patients who sustained an AFF are at high risk of subsequent fragility fractures, at least equal or even greater to the risk observed after a pMOF. However, continuation of AR drugs increases the risk of contralateral AFF. Therefore, optimal modalities for secondary fracture prevention after AFF require further evaluation. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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.

Dataset Information

Regenerate bone fracture rate following femoral lengthening in paediatric patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets