更换髓内钉与保留髓内钉附加钢板治疗髓内钉固定后股骨肥大性骨不连

 目的 探讨更换髓内钉与保留髓内钉附加钢板治疗髓内钉固定后股骨肥大性骨不连的手术适应证。方法 1998年 4月至 2009年 6月收治髓内钉固定后股骨肥大性骨不连患者 20例,11例更换髓内钉,9例保留髓内钉附加钢板固定。两组患者性别、年龄、合并伤、骨折部位、骨折类型的差异无统计学意义。通过术后 1、2、3、4、6、12个月及以后每年 1次影像学和临床功能随访,观察骨痂生长情况和患肢功能。结果两组随访时间、手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流血量、住院时间、影像学愈合时间、临床愈合时间和美国矫形外科医师学会下肢功能评分均无统计学差异。更换髓内钉组住院费用多于保留髓内钉附加钢板组(t'=16.4,P=0.013)。更换髓内钉组 4例未获得骨性愈合,其中 2例为股骨下 1/3骨折,1例为狭部 B型骨折,1例为 32-A3型骨折。再次手术,其中 3例采用髂骨植骨保留髓内钉附加钢板固定,1例行动力化。保留髓内钉附加钢板组全部获得骨性愈合。两组愈合率的差异有统计学意义(χ²= 6.01,P=0.008)。结论 更换髓内钉只适用于股骨狭部肥大性骨不连。对干骺端骨不连、伴有大蝶形游离骨块、骨缺损及更换髓内钉失败病例可采用保留髓内钉附加钢板固定。

The treatment of femoral shaft hypertrophic nonunions with exchange nailing versus augmentation plating

Objective To compare the outcomes and indications between exchange nailing (EN) and augmentation plating (AP) with a nail left in situ for femoral shaft hypertrophic nonunion after femoral nailing. Methods From April 1998 to June 2009, 20 patients with femoral shaft hypertrophic nonunions after femoral nailing were treated with EN (11 patients) and AP (9 patients) respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the patient's age, gender, associated injuries, anatomical location and type of femoral fracture. Patients were evaluated by imaging and clinical function at 1, 2, 3, 4,6, and 12 months after surgery, and then every year postoperatively, to observe the callus and the recovery condition of the affected limb function. Fisher exact test and t'-test were performed to compare the outcome and complications respectively. Results An unpaired t'-test showed no significant differences with respect to follow-up time, operating time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, length of stay, time to radiographic union, time to clinical union, and AAOS score between the two groups. The cost of hospitalizations in the EN group was higher than in the AP group (t'=16.4, P=0.013). Four nonunions in the EN group failed to achieve union, which 3 patients were subsequently treated with AP and simultaneous autogenous bone grafting and 1 patient was treated with nail dynamization. All 9 hypertrophic nonunions in the AP group obtained osseous union. Fisher exact test showed a higher nonunion rate of EN compared with AP (χ2=6.01 ,P=0.008). Conclusion EN has been an excellent choice for aseptic isthmal femoral nonunion without a large bone defect subsequent to intramedullary fracture fixation, and AP can be an effective solution in cases of nonisthmal femoral nonunion and bone defect and failed exchange nailing.