Whether Assisted Intramedullary Nail Implantation Without Traction Table is as Safe and Effective as Using Traction Table of Older Intertrochanteric Fracture Patients?

Purpose

Despite promising clinical outcome proposals, there has been relatively little published regarding the use of traction table-assisted intramedullary nail implantation for intertrochanteric fractures. The purpose of this study is to further summarize and evaluate published clinical studies comparing the clinical outcomes of using traction table and without traction table in the management of intertrochanteric fracture.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was systematically performed to evaluate all studies included in the literature up to May 2022. The search terms included "intertrochanteric fractures", "hip fractures", and "traction table" with Boolean operators "AND" and "OR". The following information was extracted and summarized: demographic information, setup time, surgical time, amount of bleeding, fluoroscopy exposure time, reduction quality, and Harris Hip Score (HHS).

Results

A total of eight clinical controlled studies involving 620 patients were eligible for the review. The mean age at the time of injury was 75.3 years (traction table group 75.7 years, non-traction table group 74.9 years). The most common assisted intramedullary nail implantation method of non-traction table group included lateral decubitus position (4 studies), traction repositor, (3 studies) and manual traction (1 studies). Included studies results all support that there was no difference between the two groups in terms of reduction quality and Harris Hip Score, and the non-traction table group had an advantage in terms of setup time. However, there were still disputes in terms of surgical time, amount of bleeding and fluoroscopy exposure time.

Conclusion

For patients with intertrochanteric fractures, assisting intramedullary nail implantation without traction table is as safe and effective as using traction table and doing so without a traction table may be more advantageous in terms of setup time.

Is proximal femoral nailing of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in the lateral decubitus position without a traction table as safe and effective as on a traction table?

OBJECTIVES

Using proximal femoral nailing (PFN) in the lateral decubitus (lateral) position may be an option when no traction table is available. We hypothesized that applying PFN would be effective and reliable in the lateral position without a traction table. To test our hypothesis, we compared the two techniques in a prospective, randomized controlled study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty patients (> 60 years of age) with unstable intertrochanteric fractures were randomly operated on prospectively in the lateral position without a traction table (Group 1) or in the supine position with a traction table (Group 2) between April 2018 and April 2019. We compared the surgery preparation time, total anesthesia time, duration of surgery, fluoroscopy exposure time, and amount of bleeding between the two procedures. The type-apex distance (TAD), collodiaphyseal angle (CDA), reduction quality, and lag quadrant were measured radiologically. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was also calculated.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 18.5 (14-27) months in Group 1 and 19.9 (14-27) months in Group 2. The mean follow-up time, mean age, sex distribution, and fracture pattern were similar between the groups. The preparation time and total anesthesia time of Group 2 were longer than those of Group 1, and the fluoroscopy time of Group 2 was shorter than that of Group 1 (p < 0.05). No significant differences in surgical time, bleeding amount, TAD, CDA, target lag quadrant, reduction quality, or the HHS were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that PFN is a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures when a traction table is not available in the operating room.

Do additional intramedullary elastic nails improve the results of definitive treatment with external fixation of open tibia fractures? A prospective comparative study

PURPOSE

External fixation has been associated with a high incidence of complications and poor outcomes due to the instability and difficulty in treating open tibia fractures. We use intramedullary (IM) elastic nails to supplement the external fixator. We compared the results of fractures treated by external fixation with and without IM-elastic nail.

HYPOTHESIS

The combination of external fixation with IM-elastic nails may be used as an alternative to solve problems due to the external fixators alone in open tibia fractures.

METHODS

Group 1 included prospectively 26 cases (15 males and 11 females, mean age 37.5 ± 12.4 years) treated with external fixation and IM-elastic nails, whereas group 2 consisted of 28 cases (23 males and five females, mean age 30.7 ± 14.0 years) treated with standard external fixation. Functional and bone results were made using the criteria proposed by ASAMI.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 3.96 ± 2.0 years in group 1 and 3.32 ± 2.1 years in group 2. The mean duration to external fixation and mean time to union were significantly lower in group 1 (P<0.001). In addition, bone and functional results were significantly higher in group 1 (P<0.01), however, pin track infections were lower in group 1 (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed the improvement in outcomes with IM-elastic nails: decreased duration of external fixation need and decreased bone healing delay. Therefore, this method may be a superior alternative for preventing complications related to external fixation in open tibia fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III: prospective comparative study.