Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Nail Fit: Does Nail Diameter to Canal Ratio Predict the Need for Exchange Nailing in the Setting of Aseptic, Hypertrophic Femoral Nonunions?|
|Authors:||Millar, Michael J;Wilkinson, Andrew;Navarre, Pierre;Steiner, Joel;Vohora, Ashray;Hardidge, Andrew;Edwards, Elton|
|Affiliation:||Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne VIC, Australia|
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
|Citation:||Journal of orthopaedic trauma 2018; online first: 26 January|
|Abstract:||To evaluate patient independent risk factors of aseptic femoral hypertrophic nonunion requiring exchange nailing, with particular reference to the fit of the nail at the isthmus within the canal. Retrospective case control study SETTING:: Level 1 trauma centre MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:: Between 2008-2012, 211 patients without any patient-dependent risk factors for nonunion were treated with a locked reamed intramedullary nail for a femoral shaft fracture. 23 cases went on to hypertrophic nonunion requiring exchange nailing (treatment group) and 188 cases went on to union (control group). Patient independent risk factors for exchange nailing were documented. Patient independent risk factors for exchange nailing were: poor fracture reduction (OR 11.5, 95% CI 4.0-33.4, p<0.001), open fracture (OR 7.6, 95% CI 3.0-19.6, p=0.004), Winquist classification of 4 (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.9-6.7, p=0.016), and poor nail fit (OR 10.3, 95% CI 5.1-28.4, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed nail fit as an independent predictor of femoral nonunion requiring exchange nailing (OR 11.4, 95% CI 6.9-15.2, p <0.001). Moreover, we found a direct relationship between increasingly poor nail fit and increased risk of exchange nailing, with the criterion occurring at a nail fit ratio < 70%. When proceeding to femoral fracture reamed intramedullary nailing, we recommend a minimum nail fit of 70% at the isthmus, and ideally 90% or more, in order to avoid surgical re-intervention. Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.|
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.