The Poller Screw Technique: A Method of Fine-Tuning the Reduction in Locked Nailing

Clinical efficacy and complications of blocking screw in the treatment of lower limb long bone fracture: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Blocking screw technique has been widely applied in the treatment of long shaft fractures. However, the evidence with regard to whether intramedullary nail combined with blocking screw technique has better clinical efficacy over other is not clear. The aim of the study was to explore the clinical efficacy and complications of intramedullary nail combined with blocking screw technique in the treatment of femoral or tibial shaft fractures.

METHODS

The PuMed, Embase, OVID, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Wanfang, CNKI and Weipu data were searched for studies of intramedullary nail combined with blocking screw in treatment of femoral or tibial shaft fracture published up to Aug 31 2023. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed, relevant data were extracted, and RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software were used to perform the meta-analysis of parameters related to the consequences.

RESULT

Twenty articles were included, including 1267 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the non-blocking screw group, the blocking screw group had longer operation time (WMD = 13.24; 95% CI = 5.68-20.79, P = .0006) and more intraoperative fluoroscopy times (WMD = 57.62; 95% CI = 25.82-89.42, P = .0002). However, the postoperative therapeutic response rate was higher (OR = 5.60; 95% CI = 2.10-14.93, P = .0006), postoperative ankle joint function was better (OR = 3.48; 95% CI = 1.20-10.13, P = .02), and fracture healing rate was higher (OR = 3.56; 95% CI = 1.43-8.89, P = .006), fracture healing time was shorter (WMD = -3.59; 95% CI = -4.96 to -2.22, P < .00001), intraoperative blood loss was less (WMD = -54.80; 95% CI = -88.77 to -20.83, P = .002), hospitalization time was shorter (WMD = -1.66; 95% CI = -2.08 to -1.24, P < .00001), and complications were less (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.16-0.89, P = .01). There was no statistical significance in the range of motion of knee joint between the 2 groups (WMD = 10.04; 95% CI = -1.51 to 21.59, P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence shows that intramedullary nail combined with blocking screw technique in the treatment of lower limb long bone fracture has the advantages of good clinical efficacy, high fracture healing rate, short fracture healing time, good joint function, less complications and so on, which is worthy of clinical recommendation.

Avoiding deformity in proximal tibial nailing: risk factors, deformity rules, tips, and tricks

Malalignment is one of the most common problems linked to nailing of proximal tibial fractures. This review will cover technical aspects of intramedullary nailing and will help explain the various risk factors. Deformity rules aid in identifying the likely deformity and help to develop management strategies. Various tools and techniques are discussed which can help optimize the outcome.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level V.

A New Technique for Placement of Blocking Screws and its Mechanical Effect on Stability of Tibia Fractures with Distal Fragments after Insertion of Small-Diameter Intramedullary Nails

Objective

To design a novel blocking screws (BSs) geometry and insertion method to treat distal tibia fracture with nailing and comparison of mechanical properties of novel and traditional screws.

Methods

Twenty‐one synthetic left tibiae were sectioned to obtain 21 distal segments measuring 55 mm. Intramedullary (IM) 9‐mm tibial nails were advanced to 6 mm from the ankle joint. Two transverse and one anterior–posterior (AP) locking screws were inserted. Both medial–lateral (ML) BSs were placed 10 mm from the topmost interlocking screw. A custom‐made jig assisted in placing the novel and traditional BSs. The time spent in placing each BS was recorded. All the samples were repaired with an IM nail and without BSs, with two traditional BSs, and with two novel BSs. An initial loading from −150 to +150 N was applied to specimens in the ML direction at 185 mm from the nail end, followed by cyclic loading of the same for 10,000 cycles with failure‐to‐test loading of 350 N in the ML direction. The maximum displacement was measured at 80 mm from the nail end and recorded under initial loading. The damage of two kinds of BSs to the nail was recorded.

Results

Compared with average 5.21 min of the time of placing a traditional BS, the time spent in positioning a novel BS on the fracture model was 2.53 min. In the distal bone–implant constructs (BICs), the addition of traditional BSs decreased the maximum displacement of the BICs by 26.2%. The addition of the novel BSs decreased the displacement by 28.9%. All constructs survived 10,000 cycles without hardware deformation. The failure rate of the control group was significantly greater than that of the traditional group; however, the novel group was similar to the traditional group. The damage of the traditional BS to the nail was greater than that of the novel one.

Conclusions

The novel and traditional BSs are comparably effective for increasing the primary mechanical stability of distal metaphyseal fractures after nailin. However, compared to the placement of a traditional BS, implanting a novel BS took more less time and caused less damage to the nail. Additionally, the most obvious advantage of the novel BS design and insertion technology was that the pressure and distance between it and the IM nail could be controlled by rotating the screw. These advantages of the novel BS will be beneficial for clinical application.