逆行和顺行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的比较研究

目的 比较逆行和顺行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的愈合率和并发症。方法 前瞻性地研究应用扩髓交锁髓内钉技术治疗新鲜股骨干骨折138例，其中逆行钉治疗46例，顺行钉治疗92例。经平均25个月（6～62个月）随访。结果 逆行钉组中37例骨折正常愈合，延迟愈合5例，畸形愈合4例；顺行钉组78例骨折正常愈合，延迟愈合8例，畸形愈合6例。结论 在骨折愈合方面，两种治疗方法无显著性差异。逆行交锁髓内钉治疗术后膝关节并发症较常见，而顺行交锁髓内钉治疗术后髋关节并发症较常见。     

顺行交锁髓内钉内固定治疗股骨骨折的疗效观察

目的观察顺行交锁髓内钉内固定治疗股骨骨折的手术效果及并发症情况。方法回顾性分析我院2008年1月～2010年1月间治疗股骨骨折72例的临床资料,所有病例随机分为观察组（顺行交锁髓内钉内固定治疗）36例和对照组（逆行交锁髓内钉内固定治疗）36例,比较两组的手术疗效及并发症情况。结果 72例患者均获得随访,随访时间为8～36个月,平均12.8个月。其中两组手术平均时间、术中出血量、平均住院时间、骨折愈合时间比较,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。但观察组术后并发症明显少于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,且术后膝关节和或髋关节疼痛发生率观察组明显低于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论顺行和逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨骨折疗效相似,但顺行较逆行交锁髓内钉的术后并发症少,患者疼痛轻,因此可以尽量缩小交锁髓内钉治疗股骨骨折的临床应用范围。     

微创下交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折

目的探讨微创下非导针引导顺行交锁髓内钉内固定治疗股骨干骨折的可行性。方法自2002年2月至2006年2月应用不扩髓非导针引导下小切口顺行交锁髓内钉内固定治疗股骨干新鲜闭合骨折32例，其中股骨干横形骨折12例，斜形骨折8例，粉碎骨折12例；一侧股骨干横形骨折合并同侧胫腓骨干粉碎骨折1例。结果平均随访14个月，骨性愈合且恢复正常负重及行走25例（78％），临床愈合6例（19％），骨延迟愈合1例。本组无感染，髓内钉折弯、折断，无畸形愈合。结论微创下顺行交锁髓内钉内固定治疗新鲜闭合股骨干骨折能防止短缩和旋转，固定牢靠，具有创伤小、骨折愈合快、能早期活动及并发症少等优点。     

顺行扩髓交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折(附237例报告)

目的：探讨顺行扩髓交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的治疗效果。方法：对1996年6月～2002年7月应用顺行扩髓交锁髓内钉治疗237例股骨干骨折进行回顾分析。骨折类型根据AO／ASIF分类，A型骨折88例，B型124例，C型25例。其中开放性骨折36例，包括Gustilo Ⅰ型至ⅢA型，闭合性骨折201例。全部应用静力固定。结果：平均随访时间12个月(6～22个月)，闭合性骨折平均愈合时间15周(10～22周)，开放性骨折18周(13～36周)。12例延迟愈合，无深部感染、骨髓炎、畸形愈合、骨不连及断钉等并发症。全部患者术后邻近关节的功能均恢复正常。结论：扩髓交锁髓内钉是治疗股骨干骨折较理想的方法，骨折愈合率高，并发症较少。     

小切口扩髓磁力导航交锁髓内钉治疗粉碎性股骨干骨折

目的 探讨小切口扩髓磁力导航交锁髓内钉固定治疗粉碎性股骨干骨折的临床效果.方法 应用磁力导航交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折21例.术后对膝关节功能以Merchan评分标准评定.结果 无一例骨折不愈合或延迟愈合的情况.平均愈合时间6.2个月(5～7.8个月).按Merchan膝关节评分标准:优19例,良1例,可1例,优良率95.2%.结论 小切口扩髓导航交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折手术创伤小、简便易行、骨折愈合快、疗效可靠,术后膝关节功能影响较小.     

逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨远端骨折

目的评价逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨远端骨折的效果。方法：2000年6月至2002年12月对18例股骨远端骨折采用逆行交锁髓内钉手术治疗。男13例，女5例，平均年龄35岁(16-65岁)。结果全部病例随访半年以上，骨折全部愈合，无畸形愈合及感染。结论逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨远端骨折具有牢固可靠，便于膝关节早期功能锻炼，避免因固定不牢固骨折延迟愈合，影响功能锻炼。     

闭合复位交锁髓内钉固定治疗股骨干骨折

目的探讨闭合复位交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的疗效。方法对32例股骨干骨折应用闭合复位交锁髓内钉治疗，均闭合复位顺行置钉。结果所有患者随访6～26个月，术后复位满意，骨折平均愈合时间12周，术后均愈合良好，无主钉或锁钉断裂，无肢体短缩、功能障碍、感染。结论闭合复位交锁髓内钉是治疗股骨干骨折的一种创伤小、并发症少、骨愈合时间短、术后患者恢复好的内固定方法。     

交锁髓内钉固定与锁定加压钢板内固定治疗股骨干骨折的效果比较

目的比较交锁髓内钉固定与加压钢板内固定治疗股骨干骨折的效果。方法将80例股骨干骨折患者随机分为2组,每组40例。对照组实施加压钢板内固定,观察组实施交锁髓内钉固定。比较2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、并发症发生率及末次随访Merchan膝关节功能优良率。结果 2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。观察组术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、并发症、术后膝关节功能优良率均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论与加压钢板内固定比较,交锁髓内钉固定治疗股骨干骨折创伤小、骨折愈合时间短、膝关节功能恢复良好,且并发症少。     

逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨远端骨折延迟愈合及不愈合

目的 观察逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨远端骨折延迟愈合、不愈合的临床疗效。方法 9例股骨远端骨折延迟愈合及不愈合,并伴膝关节不同程度关节功能活动障碍患者,行手术取出内固定,膝关节软组织松解,骨折复位,逆行交锁髓内钉内固定,并取自体髂骨植骨,术后配合CPM行患肢膝关节功能锻炼。结果 术后随访16～26个月全部患者均获得骨性愈合,无内固定物松动、断裂。膝关节功能活动观显改善。结论 逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨远端骨折延迟愈合、不愈合,临床效果满意,特别适宜在其它内固定物失败的情况下使用。治疗的关键在于术中膝关节软组织充分松解,骨折块准确复位,扩髓并正确插入合适的髓内钉,静力固定,植骨及术后积极地功能锻炼。     

闭合复位交锁髓内钉治疗股骨胫骨骨折

目的探讨闭合复位交锁髓内钉治疗股骨、胫骨骨折的临床应用效果。方法自2003年6月至2004年6月使用交锁髓内钉治疗股骨、胫骨骨折26例，手术采用闭合复位、顺行插钉技术，分析其疗效。结果随访病例26例，随访时间6～9个月。术后1～3周髋／膝关节功能恢复正常。无感染，无骨折延迟愈合，骨不连及畸形愈合。结论闭合复位交锁髓内钉治疗股骨、胫骨骨折具有创伤小，术中出血少，稳定性好，功能恢复快，骨折愈合率高等优点，值得临床推广和应用。     

Retrograde versus antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures

OBJECTIVES: To compare union rates and complications of retrograde intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures with those of antegrade intramedullary nailing. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-three consecutive adult patients with 293 fractures of the femoral shaft who underwent stabilization with antegrade or retrograde inserted femoral nails were studied. There were 140 retrograde nails and 153 antegrade nails. Twelve fractures in twelve patients were excluded (three in patients who died early in the postoperative period, three in patients because of early amputation, four in patients who were paraplegic, and two in patients who fractured through abnormal bone owing to metastatic carcinoma), leaving 134 fractures treated with retrograde nails and 147 treated with antegrade nails. One hundred four femurs treated with retrograde nails (Group R) and ninety-four femurs treated with antegrade nails (Group A) had sufficient follow-up and served as the two study groups. The average clinical follow-up was twenty-three months (range 6 to 66 months) for Group R and twenty-three months (range 5 to 64 months) for Group A. Both groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, number of open fractures, degree of comminution, mode of interlocking (i.e., static or dynamic), and nail diameter (p > 0.05). INTERVENTION: Retrograde intramedullary nails were inserted through the intercondylar notch of the knee, and antegrade nails were inserted through the pirformis fossa using standard techniques. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Union, delayed union, nonunion, malunion, and complication rates. RESULTS: After the index procedure there were no significant differences in healing or incidence of malunion between Group R and Group A (p > 0.05). Healing after the index procedure occurred in ninety-one (88 percent) of the femurs in Group R and in eighty-four (89 percent) of the femurs in Group A. In Group R, there were seven delayed unions (7 percent) and six nonunions (6 percent). In Group A, there were four delayed unions (4 percent) and six nonunions (6 percent). Healing ultimately occurred in 100 (96 percent) femurs from Group R and in ninety-three (99 percent) femurs from Group A. In Group R, there were eleven malunions (11 percent), and in Group A, there were twelve malunions (13 percent). When patients with ipsilateral knee injuries were excluded, the incidence of knee pain was significantly greater for Group R patients (36 percent) than for Group A patients (9 percent) (p < 0.001). When patients with ipsilateral hip injuries were excluded, the incidence of hip pain was significantly greater for Group A patients (10 percent) than for Group R patients (4 percent) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde and antegrade nailing techniques provided similar results in union and malunion rates. There were more complications related to the knee after retrograde nailing and more complications related to the hip after antegrade nailing.     

Prospective comparison of retrograde and antegrade femoral intramedullary nailing

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the results, function, and complications of antegrade and retrograde femoral nailing for femoral shaft fractures. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized. SETTING: Urban Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: One hundred consecutive femoral shaft fractures. Fifty-four nails inserted retrograde and forty-six inserted antegrade. INTERVENTION: Ten-millimeter antegrade or retrograde nail inserted for a femoral shaft fracture after reaming. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: A comparison of the outcomes after antegrade and retrograde nailing of the femur. Data were collected for analysis on comminution, set-up and starting point times, open grade, location of fracture, injury severity score, body mass index, time to union, knee pain and motion, hip and thigh pain, and nail to intramedullary canal diameter difference. A linear regression model was employed. RESULTS: Knee motion was 120 degrees in all but one knee in each group. The antegrade nailed femurs healed faster than those treated retrograde (A = 14.4, R = 18.1 weeks, p = 0.0496). More patients required dynamization for union in the retrograde insertion group (17 percent versus 5 percent, p = 0.10, NS). In a linear regression model, a nail-to-canal-diameter difference and retrograde nailing had an association with an increased time to union. Knee pain was equal in both groups; however, thigh pain was higher in the antegrade group (p = 0.0108). All of the antegrade nailed femurs healed (100 percent), and 98 percent (one nonunion) of the retrograde femurs healed after secondary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Both antegrade and retrograde nailing yielded high union rates. Each insertion technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. The two insertion modes appear to be relatively equal for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures.     

Antegrade Versus Retrograde Locked Intramedullary Nailing for Femoral Fractures: Which Is Better?

Abstract Background: Locked intramedullary nailing or interlocking nailing (ILN) is a proven mode of treatment for femoral shaft fractures. It can be inserted via the antegrade or retrograde approach. Retrograde approach is technically less demanding especially if the patient is overweight. But there are concerns with regard to the violation of the knee and its effect on subsequent knee function. Methods: We studied consecutive cases of femoral shaft fractures treated with locked intramedullary nailing at the Penang General Hospital, from 1st June 2004 to 1st June 2005. We looked at radiological and clinical union rates, union of fractures, alignment of the operated limb, and the knee function, using the Thoresen scoring system. Results: There were a total of 77 cases of femoral interlocking nails during the study period. Forty-two cases were antegrade nails and 35 cases were retrograde nails. Both groups of patients eventually achieved union of the fracture and retrograde nailing group showed significantly earlier union rate (p = 0.032). There is no significant difference between both groups, in regards to knee pain, swelling, and range of motion as well as postnailing femoral alignment. Conclusions: Both methods of nailing achieved excellent union rates with good alignment of the limb. Contrary to popular belief, we found that retrograde nailing does not give rise to a higher rate of knee complications. Therefore, we strongly recommend this approach of nailing as it is technically less demanding.     

Subtrochanteric fractures after retrograde femoral nailing

Secondary fractures around femoral nails placed for the management of hip fractures are well known. We report, two cases of a fracture of the femur at the interlocking screw site in the subtrochanteric area after retrograde femoral nailing of a femoral shaft fracture. Only a few reports in the existing literature have described these fractures. Two young men after sustaining a fall presented to us with pain, swelling and deformity in the upper thigh region. On enquiring, examining and radiographing them, peri-implant fractures of subtrochanteric nature through the distal interlocking screws were revealed in both patients who also had histories of previous falls for which retrograde intramedullary nailing was performed for their respective femora. Both patients were managed with similar surgical routines including removal of the existing hardware, open reduction and ace cephallomedullary antegrade nailing. The second case did show evidence of delayed healing and was additionally stabilized with cerclage wires. Both patients had uneventful postoperative outcomes and union was evident at the end of 6 mo postoperatively with a good range of motion at the hip and knee. Our report suggests that though seldom reported, peri-implant fractures around the subtrochanteric region can occur and pose a challenge to the treating orthopaedic surgeon. We suggest these be managed, after initial stabilization and resuscitation, by implant removal, open reduction and interlocking intramedullary antegrade nailing. Good results and progression to union can be expected in these patients by adhering to basic principles of osteosynthesis.     

Does fixation of femoral fractures using retrograde intramedullary nailing cause long-term knee pain: a systematic review of the literature

Aim  To perform a systematic review of the literature to discover if knee pain was a common complication in patients who underwent retrograde intramedullary fixation for femoral fractures and whether the pain persisted beyond fracture union and soft tissue healing. Materials and methods  The literature search revealed eight articles which fit the inclusion criteria. These series were then compared and articles critiqued to allow conclusions to be drawn. Three articles compared antegrade and retrograde nails and five articles reviewed results of retrograde fixation only. Results  Retrograde intramedullary nailing produced knee pain in 40–53% of patients compared with 20% in antegrade fixations during follow-up. These figures however, dropped substantially by final follow-up to 23–24% for retrograde and 12.5% for antegrade. Thirty-seven per cent of knee pain post operatively was associated with prominent metal work the majority of which resolved if the metal was removed. Conclusion  Retrograde intramedullary nailing for femoral fractures is associated with higher rates of anterior knee pain than antegrade nailing. Many cases of knee pain can be prevented with proper technique avoiding prominent metal work and many more cases settle in time with no intervention.     

Antegrade or retrograde reamed femoral nailing. A prospective, randomised trial

Retrograde femoral nailing is gaining in popularity. We report a prospective, randomised comparison of antegrade and retrograde procedures in 68 patients with 69 fractures of the femoral shaft. All nails were inserted after appropriate reaming. There was no difference in operating time, blood loss, technical complications, size of nail or reamer, or transfusion requirements. There were more problems of length and rotation using a retrograde technique on a radiolucent table than with an antegrade approach on a fracture table. All fractures in both groups healed and there was no difference in the time taken to achieve union. Although retrograde nailing is a promising technique the skills required need practice. A longer period of follow-up is necessary to determine whether there are long-term problems in the knee after such surgery.     

Retrograde femoral nailing: a focus on the knee

A consecutive series of 23 patients with reamed retrograde femoral nails was reviewed. Nails were placed through the intercondylar notch with a minimal incision. Nineteen patients with retrograde femoral nails were available at an average follow-up of 19.3 months. The union rate was 100% with no infections or malunions. No second surgeries were required for union. Knee range of motion averaged 109 degrees and was greater in those patients with shaft fractures (117 degrees) than in those with supracondylar-intercondylar fractures (91.3 degrees) (P=.02). Pain (0-3 scale) averaged 0.36. Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores averaged 80.4 (90% good or excellent results). Minor knee pain (55%) and secondary surgeries (35%) were common. The only fair or poor results were in patients with preexisting osteoarthritis. A literature review of 14 papers and abstracts was conducted. Exposure, often extensive initially, is more recently percutaneous. The infection rate is acceptable (0-14%), with knee sepsis uncommon. Lower union rates were observed for supracondylar femur fractures (80%-84%) than for femoral shaft fractures (85%-100%) after a single surgery. Second surgeries are common (14%-60%). Varus/valgus malunion, common (12%-29%) with the initial extrarticular entry site, occurs less with the intercondylar entry site. The antegrade femoral nail allows for better control of proximal shaft fractures, while the retrograde femoral nail is more reliable in controlling distal shaft fractures. Rotational malunion still remains a problem. Mild knee pain is common (13%-60%). The treatment of supracondylar femur nonunions with retrograde femoral nailing is disappointing.     

Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Report of two cases using an alternate technique

A technique for ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fracture using the sliding compression hip screw with plate combined with trochanteric antegrade Ender nailing of the femur was applied in two cases. Ender nails can be passed without difficulty past a compression hip screw and the bicortical plating screws. The hip and femur can be fixed internally through a single approach in a single position. Sliding compression hip screw devices can provide excellent preliminary stable femoral neck fixation. Blood supply to the femoral head is not disturbed while the femoral intramedullary fixation is performed. Antegrade Ender nailing avoids the common knee complications associated with other retrograde techniques. Decreased operative time, less blood loss, less technical difficulty, and early mobilization are important factors in the multiple-injured patient. Femoral intramedullary fixation may require open reduction, circlerage to ensure stability, and maintenance of alignment in case of significant comminution to allow early crutch ambulation. This mode of fixation may be advantageous for selected cases.     

Trochanteric nail insertion for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate whether the use of a new femoral nail, specifically designed to be inserted through the greater trochanter, could eliminate the complications previously seen with insertion of straight nails through this entry portal for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. DESIGN: Prospective, clinical trial. SETTING: Three level I trauma centers. PATIENTS: Sixty-one consecutive patients with femoral shaft fractures (50 closed and 11 open fractures) treated with antegrade nailing with insertion through the greater trochanter. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated in the supine position with a TAN nail (Trigen System, Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN) inserted through the greater trochanter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Union, alignment, complications, and hip function. RESULTS: Forty-six of 57 (81%) surviving patients were available for follow-up at a minimum of 12 (range, 12-25) months. Union occurred in all but 1 fracture after the index procedure. No patient sustained iatrogenic fracture comminution, and there were no angular malunions. Pain was reported as slight in 6 patients and moderate in 2. Visual and videotaped gate analysis, performed on 24 patients, revealed symmetrical walking in 21. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures with a specially designed nail inserted through a trochanteric starting point provides predictably high union rates and low rates of complications. Ease of entry and utility in patients with a large body habitus are advantages over conventional piriformis fossa entry techniques. Nailing through the greater trochanter with the patient supine is presently our treatment of choice for patients with femoral shaft fractures.     

Initial definitive treatment of open femoral shaft fractures with retrograde nailing - is it safe? A retrospective analysis comparing antegrade to retrograde nailing

IntroductionTreatment of severe open femoral fractures with retrograde intramedullary nailing, raises concerns of septic arthritis of the knee due to its intra-articular entrance point. There is little evidence concerning the safety of retrograde femoral nailing (RFN) usage in these cases, and what evidence there is does not necessarily include severe open fractures. Furthermore, the outcome of ballistic injuries treated in this manner and a comparison with antegrade femoral nailing (AFN), is yet to be established. The aim of this study was to examine the outcome of primary retrograde femoral nailing in high-grade open fractures and compare our results with similar fractures treated with AFN.Patients and methodsA retrospective analysis of treated high-grade open femoral fractures, was performed at an academic level one trauma centre between 2006 and 2016. Included were all open femur shaft fractures treated with either RFN or AFN as primary fixation. We analysed both patient groups and compared outcomes including the infection rate, non-union rate and secondary interventions. Presence of knee pain and long-term function, was evaluated using the Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire.ResultsForty-nine patients with open femoral shaft fractures whose primary treatment was intramedullary nailing (IMN), were included in the cohort. Thirty patients were treated with RFN and 19 with AFN. No septic arthritis of the knee was detected in either group. One patient in the RFN group and two in the AFN had a deep surgical wound infection. Excluding reoperations for locking screw removal due to local irritation, the reoperation rate was 22% with two patients treated for non-union in the RFN group and two in the AFN. When comparing outcome measures, including SF-12 scores and the reported knee pain rates of AFN and RFN groups, no significant differences were observed.ConclusionOur study showed that retrograde femoral nailing as initial definitive treatment in high-grade open femoral shaft fractures, resulted neither in septic arthritis of the knee nor in an unacceptable infection rate. General outcomes regarding complications and reoperations, was similar to antegrade femoral nailing performed in our centre for similar injuries.