扩髓与非扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折

目的比较扩髓与非扩髓型带锁髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的临床疗效。方法对86例共92侧开放性胫骨骨折采用带锁髓内钉治疗,其中扩髓组54侧,非扩髓组38侧。伤口拆线后扶拐下地活动,术后定期随访6个月～2年。结果扩髓组与非扩髓组局部感染率分别是20．3％和5．3％（P〈0．05）;扩髓组与非扩髓组平均骨折愈合时间分别为22．5周和19周（P〉0．05）;延迟愈合分别为8例,3例。结论与扩髓组比较,非扩髓带锁髓内钉延迟愈合或不愈合少,感染率低,两组平均骨折愈合时间无明显差异。     

外固定支架与非扩髓髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的疗效比较

目的比较外固定支架与非扩髓髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的临床疗效。方法对2002年1月～2004月12月急诊治疗的156例开放性胫骨骨折患者资料进行回顾性分析，其中93例采用单臂外固定支架治疗，63例采用非扩髓髓内钉治疗。对两组患者的一般资料、骨折AO分型、软组织Gustilo分型、术后骨折愈合时间、骨折延迟愈合例数及并发症进行统计学分析。结果外固定支架组和非扩髓髓内钉组的骨折平均愈合时间分别为7．8个月（3～18个月）、5．3个月（2．12个月）。非扩髓髓内钉组在骨折愈合时间、骨折延迟愈合及骨折畸形愈合方面明显优于单臂外固定支架组（P〈0．05）；两组在感染发生率方面差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论非扩髓髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折具有骨折愈合时间短、畸形愈合少等优点。对于严重污染的创面及全身多发伤患者，外固定支架的临时固定是首选。     

扩髓与非扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的疗效比较

目的 比较扩髓与非扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的临床疗效。方法 对64例共67侧开放性胫骨骨折采用带锁髓内钉治疗，其中非扩髓组36侧，扩髓组31侧。伤口愈合拆线后扶拐下地活动，术后定期随访6个月-1年。结果 非扩髓组与扩髓组局部感染率分别是13．9％和12．9％(P＞0．05)，无全身感染；非扩髓组5例锁钉断裂，扩髓组无断钉；非扩髓组与扩髓组平均骨折愈合时间分别为22．5周和17．2周(P＜0．05)。延迟愈合分别为5例、3例，非扩髓组有1例骨折不愈合。结论 与非扩髓组比较，扩髓带锁髓内钉具有骨折固定强度大、骨折愈合快、延迟愈合或不愈合少，感染率没有明显升高。     

扩髓与非扩髓髓内钉固定治疗胫骨闭合性骨折的系统评价

[目的]系统评价扩髓髓内钉(reamed intramedullary nailing,RTN)与非扩髓髓内钉(unreamed intr-amedullary nailing,UTN)治疗胫骨闭合性骨折的疗效。[方法]通过计算机检索、手工检索和其他检索方法,收集RTN与UTN治疗胫骨闭合性骨折的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trials,RCT)和半随机对照试验(quasi-ran-domized controlled trials,CCT),按Cochrane协作网推荐的方法进行系统评价。[结果]共纳入6个RCT研究,总病例数为1214例。Meta分析显示:(1)RTN组的骨折不愈合率低于UTN组,差异有统计学意义(RR=0.41;95%CI(0.21,0.78),P=0.007);(2)RTN组的内置物失败率低于UTN组,差异有统计学意义(RR=0.32;95%CI(0.20,0.50),P<0.000 1);(3)RTN组与UTN组术后畸形愈合率及感染率差异无统计学意义,两者相对危险度分别为0.45(95%CI(0.16,1.22),P=0.12)、0.45(95%CI(0...     

微切口复位有限扩髓交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干A型骨折

目的 探讨微切口复位、有限扩髓交锁髓内钉内固定治疗股骨干A型骨折的方法和疗效。方法采用微切口复位、有限扩髓、交锁髓内钉治疗40例股骨干A型骨折患者。结果经6个月～3年（平均1年）随访,骨折全部愈合,愈合时间3～5个月,平均4个月．无锁钉及髓内钉松动、断裂,髋、膝关节功能正常。结论微切口复位、有限扩髓交锁髓内钉内固定治疗股骨干A型骨折,具有创伤小、操作方便、固定坚强、能早期活动关节、骨折愈合率高及减少骨不连并发症发生等优点,可作为首选治疗方法。     

扩髓与非扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的疗效比较

目的　比较扩髓与非扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的临床疗效。方法　对 6 4例共 6 7侧开放性胫骨骨折采用带锁髓内钉治疗 ,其中非扩髓组 36侧 ,扩髓组 31侧。伤口愈合拆线后扶拐下地活动 ,术后定期随访 6个月～ 1年。结果　非扩髓组与扩髓组局部感染率分别是 13 9%和 12 9% (P >0 0 5 ) ,无全身感染 ;非扩髓组 5例锁钉断裂 ,扩髓组无断钉 ;非扩髓组与扩髓组平均骨折愈合时间分别为 2 2 5周和 17 2周 (P <0 0 5 )。延迟愈合分别为 5例、 3例 ,非扩髓组有 1例骨折不愈合。结论　与非扩髓组比较 ,扩髓带锁髓内钉具有骨折固定强度大、骨折愈合快、延迟愈合或不愈合少 ,感染率没有明显升高     

股骨干骨折--扩髓和不扩髓髓内钉比较

治疗股骨干骨折，采用不扩髓髓内钉比扩髓髓内钉手术时间明显缩短，而且失血也少。但是，扩髓钉的骨愈合更快，延迟愈合更少。两者都没有显著增加包括肺损害等其它并发症的风险。功能结果不能确定。     

胫骨骨折髓内钉内固定是否需要扩髓

胫骨骨折交锁髓内钉内固定治疗已取得了良好的临床效果,但在髓内钉内固定扩髓、不扩髓的问题上一直存在争议。为比较胫骨骨折髓内钉内固定扩髓病人与非扩髓病人在骨折愈合时间及主要并发症发生率上是否存在差异,该文作者对45例胫骨中段2/3骨折病人进行了髓内钉内固定术。术前对所有病人进行前瞻性随机分     

自体扩髓骨屑在带锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折中的应用

目的探讨观察自体扩髓骨屑在带锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折一期植骨中的作用。方法对2007年6月至2008年6月采用带锁髓内钉加自体扩髓骨屑一期植骨治疗的23例（28肢）股骨干骨折进行总结分析。结果随访12个月。拍片示术后3周可见骨痂生长。临床愈合时间平均20周。未发生骨折不愈合、感染、断钉等并发症。结论自体扩髓骨屑在带锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折一期植骨中的效果满意。     

交锁髓内钉内固定结合扩髓之骨泥回植治疗股骨干骨折不愈合

目的探讨应用交锁髓内钉固定结合回植扩髓时产生的骨泥于骨折端治疗股骨干骨折不愈合的手术方法及临床疗效。方法股骨干骨折不愈合27例,行交锁髓内钉固定并将扩髓时产生的骨泥回植于骨折端,随访其临床疗效。结果27例均获随访,均在4～16个月达临床愈合,术后12～20个月取出交锁髓内钉,未出现再骨折。结论交锁髓内钉固定结合回植扩髓时产生的骨泥于骨折端治疗股骨干骨折不愈合,操作简单,手术损伤小,有加速骨折愈合的作用。     

Reamed versus nonreamed intramedullary nailing of lower extremity long bone fractures: a systematic overview and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of reamed versus nonreamed intramedullary (IM) nailing of lower extremity long bone fractures on the rates of nonunion, implant failure, malunion, compartment syndrome, pulmonary embolus, and infection. DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review of prospective, randomized controlled trials. DATA IDENTIFICATION: MEDLINE and SCISEARCH computer searches provided lists of published randomized clinical trials from 1969 to 1998. Extensive hand searches of major orthopaedic journals, bibliographies of major orthopaedic texts, and personal files identified additional studies. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Of 676 citations initially identified, sixty proved potentially eligible, of which four published and five unpublished randomized trials met all eligibility criteria. Each of three investigators assessed study quality and abstracted relevant data. RESULTS: The pooled relative risk of reamed versus nonreamed nails (nine trials, n = 646 patients) was 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.68; p = 0.004]. The absolute risk difference in nonunion rates with reamed IM nailing was 7.0 percent (95% CI, 1 to 11 percent). Thus, one nonunion could be prevented for every fourteen patients treated with reamed IM nailing [number needed to treat (NNT) = 14.28]. The risk ratios for secondary outcome measures were: implant failure, 0.30 (95% CI, 0.16 to 0.58; p < 0.001); malunion, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.32 to 3.57); pulmonary embolus, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.26 to 4.76); compartment syndrome, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.13 to 1.56); and infection, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.21 to 4.76). Sensitivity analyses suggested that reported rates of nonunion and implant failure were higher in studies of lower quality. The type of long bone fractured (tibia or femur), the degree of soft tissue injury (open or closed), study quality, and whether a study was published or unpublished did not significantly alter the relative risk of nonunion between reamed and nonreamed IM nailing. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from a pooled analysis of randomized trials that reamed IM nailing of lower extremity long bone fractures significantly reduces rates of nonunion and implant failure in comparison with nonreamed nailing.     

Intramedullary nailing of the femur: reamed versus nonreamed

All intramedullary nailing creates some loss of endosteal blood supply and an increase in intramedullary pressure, resulting in marrow embolization. In laboratory studies, both reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing have led to alteration in selected pulmonary variables. This effect, although transient, appeared more pronounced with reamed techniques than with nonreamed techniques. Concern about the systemic pulmonary effects of reamed intramedullary nailing has led to an increase in the use of nonreamed nailing. The authors of most clinical studies have reported that reamed intramedullary nailing has not been associated with a concomitant increase in pulmonary complications in multiply injured patients, although this point is still controversial. Femoral shaft fractures treated with nonreamed nailing have been shown to have slightly higher rates of delayed union and nonunion compared with those treated with reamed nails. Reamed interlocking intramedullary fixation remains the treatment of choice for femoral shaft fractures in adults. Further study is required to determine whether an identifiable subgroup of trauma patients is adversely affected by intramedullary reaming, which would suggest the need for alternative fixation techniques.     

Femur fractures and lung complications: a prospective randomized study of reaming

Reaming the intramedullary canal during fixation of femoral shaft fractures may contribute to pulmonary morbidity in patients with trauma. The purpose of our study was to compare acute and late pulmonary complications after reamed or nonreamed nailing of femur fractures. Patients who had femoral shaft fractures were randomized prospectively to a reamed (n = 41) or nonreamed (n = 41) femoral nailing group. Arterial blood gases were measured before and after femur fixation. Ratios of PaO2/FiO2 and alveolar arterial gradients were calculated. Pulmonary complications (acute respiratory distress syndrome) (ARDS), pneumonia, and respiratory failure) were monitored. Age, gender, fracture site, fracture type, time to nailing, length of operation, Injury Severity Score, and Abbreviated Injury Scale-thorax were similar for the two groups. No significant differences were observed in the ratio of PaO2/FiO2 ratios or alveolar arterial (A-a) gradients before and after nailing. The overall incidence of pulmonary complications was 14.6% (eight patients who had reamed nailing and four patients who had nonreamed nailing), and given the sample size, definitive conclusions could not be reached because of inadequate statistical power. We were unable to document differences in pulmonary physiologic response or clinical outcome between patients having reamed and nonreamed femoral nailing. This study may serve as a pilot investigation for other clinical investigations.     

Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the treatment of subtrochanteric femur fractures: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intramedullary fixation with the extramedullary fixation in the surgical management of subtrochanteric fractures by analyzing relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs).MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from their inception till June 29, 2020. Two reviewers extracted the data, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, length of stay, union time, nonunion rate, infection rate, implant failure rate, reoperation rate, Harris hip score, and mortality rate. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale were used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and RCSs, respectively. Statistical heterogeneity was quantitatively evaluated with the I2 statistic.ResultsThere were no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, average length of stay in hospital, infection rate, implant failure rate, Harris hip scores, and mortality rate. Intramedullary nail could achieve shorter union time (MD=−1.77, 95% CI −3.40~−0.14, p=0.03), lower nonunion rate (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.14~0.97, p=0.04), and reoperation rate (RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24~0.89, p=0.02) than extramedullary fixations. The subgroup analysis indicated that intramedullary nail was superior than extramedullary fixations in operation time, reoperation rate, and Harris hip scores in the ≥60-year subgroup. However, the intraoperative blood loss in intramedullary nail group was significantly higher than that of extramedullary fixation group in the <60-year subgroup.ConclusionThe results of this study have revealed that intramedullary fixation can confer shorter union time, lower nonunion, and reoperation rates compared with extramedullary fixations. Therefore, intramedullary fixation should be considered as the first selection for the treatment of patients with subtrochanteric fractures.Level of EvidenceLevel II, Therapeutic study     

非扩髓髓内钉与外固定器治疗Ⅱ/Ⅲ型开放性胫骨骨折的系统评价

[目的] 系统评价非扩髓胫骨髓内钉(UTN)和外固定器(EF)治疗Ⅱ/Ⅲ型开放性胫骨骨折的疗效.[方法] 计算机检索MEDLINE(1966～2009.3)、EMBASE(1974～2009.3)、Cochrane图书馆(2009.1)及中国生物医学文献数据库(1979～2008.12),手工检索相关的中英文骨科杂志.收集UTN和EF治疗Ⅱ/Ⅲ型胫骨开放性骨折的随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验(CCT),按Cochrane协作网推荐的方法进行系统评价.[结果] 共纳入4个实验,RCT、CCT各2篇,共300例.Meta分析显示,(1)UTN组与EF组的不愈合率、延迟愈合率差异无统计学意义;(2)UTN组畸形愈合率显著低于EF组,固定器断裂率明显高于EF组,差异均有统计学意义;(3)ⅢA型胫骨开放性骨折,UTN组的浅部感染率显著低于EF组,深部感染率差异无统计学意义;ⅢB型胫骨开放性骨折的浅部和深部感染率差异无统计学意义.[结论] 现有的临床研究证据显示,与EF组比较,UTN可降低Ⅱ/Ⅲ型胫骨开放性骨折畸形愈合率和ⅢA型骨折的浅部感染率,但因研究质量及研究样本的局限性,尚需进行高质量、大样本的随机实验予以进一步证实.     

Success of exchange reamed intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft nonunion or delayed union

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the success of exchange reamed femoral nailing in the treatment of femoral nonunion after intramedullary (IM) nailing, and to analyze factors that may contribute to failure of exchange reamed femoral nailing. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive clinical series. SETTING: Level I trauma center and tertiary university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-three patients were identified whose radiographs failed to show progression of healing for four months after treatment with a reamed IM femoral nail. Nineteen patients had undergone primary IM nailing of an acute femoral shaft fracture, one patient had been converted to an IM nail after initially being treated in an external fixator, and three patients had previously undergone an unsuccessful exchange reamed nailing. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated by exchange reamed femoral nailing. The diameter of the new nail was one to three millimeters larger than that of the previous nail (the majority were two millimeters larger). The intramedullary canal was overreamed by one millimeter more than the diameter of the nail. Most of the nails were statically locked, and care was taken to avoid distraction of the nonunion site by reverse impaction after distal interlocking was performed or by applying compression with a femoral distractor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Radiographic evaluation of union was determined by the presence of healing on at least three of four cortices. Factors reviewed included the patient's age, smoking history, mechanism of injury, associated injuries, whether the initial fracture was open or closed, the pattern and location of the fracture, the type of nonunion, the increase in nail diameter, whether the nail was dynamically or statically locked, and the results of any intraoperative cultures. RESULTS: Tobacco use was found to have a detrimental impact on the success of exchange reamed nailing. All eight of the nonsmokers healed after exchange reamed nailing, whereas only ten of the fifteen smokers (66.7 percent) healed after exchange reamed nailing. Overall, exchange reamed femoral nailing was successful in eighteen cases (78.3 percent). Three patients achieved union with additional procedures. Intramedullary cultures were positive in five cases; all of these achieved successful union. CONCLUSIONS: Exchange reamed nailing remains the treatment of choice for most femoral diaphyseal nonunions. Exchange reamed IM nailing has low morbidity, may obviate the need for additional bone grafting, and allows full weight-bearing and active rehabilitation. Tobacco use appears to have an adverse effect on nonunion healing after exchange reamed femoral nailing.     

Reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of open and closed tibial fractures: a subgroup analysis of randomised trials

The choice between reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of open and closed tibial fractures is an ongoing controversy. We carried out a comprehensive search strategy. Six eligible randomised controlled trials were included. Three reviewers independently assessed methodological quality and extracted outcome data. Analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.0. The results showed lower risks of tibial fracture nonunion and implant failures with reamed nails compared to unreamed nails in closed tibial fractures [relative risk (RR): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.21–0.89, P = 0.008 for nonunion and RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22–0.56, P < 0.0001 for implant failures], but no statistical differences in risk reduction of malunion, compartment syndrome, embolism and infection. Our results suggested no statistical differences in risk reduction of all the complications evaluated between reamed and unreamed nails in open tibial fractures. In conclusion, our study recommended reamed nails for the treatment of closed tibial fractures. But the choice for open tibial fractures remains uncertain.     

Treatment of femoral diaphyseal nonunions

There have been conflicting reports regarding treatment of femoral diaphyseal nonunions using reamed intramedullary nailing. Although high union rates have been reported using this technique, not all orthopaedic surgeons have experienced the same success. A retrospective review of charts and radiographs of 39 adult patients with nonunions of the femoral diaphysis treated at the authors' institution with reamed intramedullary nailing, compression, and with and without interlocking was done. The time from the index procedure to nonunion repair was 4 to 75 months (average, 19 months). Fifteen patients had 18 procedures between the index operation and nonunion repair. The average followup from nonunion repair to the most recent examination was 22.5 months (range, 3-108 months) with a median of 15 months. At the last followup, the overall union rate was 74% after one procedure and 97% after two or more procedures. There were seven complications including two infections, one pulmonary embolus, one occurrence of a deep venous thrombosis, a hematoma, and one case of malrotation. The data support the use of antegrade reamed nailing as a successful technique for treatment of most femoral diaphyseal nonunions.     

Locked intramedullary nailing of open tibial fractures

We report the use of Grosse-Kempf reamed intramedullary nailing in the treatment of 41 Gustilo type II and III open tibial fractures. The union times and infection rates were similar to those previously reported for similar fractures treated by external skeletal fixation, but the incidence of malunion was less and fewer required bone grafting. The role of exchange nailing is discussed and a treatment protocol is presented for the management of delayed union and nonunion.     

Intramedullary Nailing Versus Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis for Distal Tibial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

To evaluate the application, safety and efficacy of the patients treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in distal tibia fractures. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched databases PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception of the database up to 10 October 2018, using the keywords “distal tibia fractures”, “plate”, “intramedullary nailing” and “RCT” to identify randomized clinical trials about distal tibia fractures. The included studies were assessed by two researchers according to the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias criteria. The primary outcome of measurement included operation time, malunion rate, nonunion/delayed union rate, and wound complication. Data analysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.3 software. A total of 10 RCTs involving 911 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 455 patients in the IMN group and 456 patients in the MIPO group. There were no significant differences in radiation time, nonunion or delayed union rate, union time and operation time between the two groups. Patients treated with MIPO had lower incidence of malunion compared with IMN (RR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.21 to 2.83, P = 1.00), while IMN seemed to have lower surgical incision complications whether in closed or opening fractures (RR = 0.49, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.73, P = 0.43). But in patients classified as 43A, the result of subgroup analysis suggested that there was no significant inwound complication between the two groups. MIPO was superior in preventing malunion compared with IMN, and intramedullary nailing appeared to have lower wound complications. However, in patients with 43A distal tibial fractures, MIPO was more recommended for its prevention of malunion. No matter which method we choose, we should notice and prevent the associated complications.