Display options
Cite
Fragomen AT, Kurtz AM, Barclay JR, et al. A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail. HSS J. 2018;14(2):166-176doi: 10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y.
Fragomen, A. T., Kurtz, A. M., Barclay, J. R., Nguyen, J., & Rozbruch, S. R. (2018). A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail. HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery, 14(2), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y
Fragomen, Austin T, et al. "A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail." HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery vol. 14,2 (2018): 166-176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y
Fragomen AT, Kurtz AM, Barclay JR, Nguyen J, Rozbruch SR. A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail. HSS J. 2018 Jul;14(2):166-176. doi: 10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y. Epub 2018 Jan 05. PMID: 29983659; PMCID: PMC6031532.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

HSS J. 2018 Jul;14(2):166-176. doi: 10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y. Epub 2018 Jan 05.

A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail.

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery

Austin T Fragomen, Anton M Kurtz, Jonathan R Barclay, Joseph Nguyen, S Robert Rozbruch

Affiliations

  1. 1Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 USA.
  2. Maine Orthopedics, Portland, ME USA.
  3. 3Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065 USA.

PMID: 29983659 PMCID: PMC6031532 DOI: 10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bone lengthening with an internal lengthening nail (ILN) avoids the need for external fixation and requires one less surgical procedure than lengthening over a nail (LON). However, LON has been shown to be superior to femoral internal lengthening using a mechanical nail. The magnetic ILN, a remote-controlled and magnet-driven device, may have overcome the weaknesses of earlier internal lengthening technology and may be superior to LON.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the magnetic ILN more accurate than LON for femoral lengthening? (2) Does the magnetic ILN demonstrate more precise distraction rate control than LON? (3) Does the magnetic ILN result in faster regenerate site healing, with more robust callus, than LON? (4) Does the magnetic ILN result in fewer complications, including impediments to knee motion, than LON?

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective comparison of the records and radiographs of 21 consecutive patients with 22 femoral lengthenings using LONs and 35 consecutive patients with 40 femoral lengthenings using remote-controlled magnetic ILNs. Primary outcomes measured included accuracy, distraction rate precision, time to bony union, final knee range of motion, regenerate quality, and complications. The minimum follow-up times for the LON and ILN cohorts were 13 and 21 months, respectively.

RESULTS: Patients treated with ILN had a lower post-treatment residual limb-length discrepancy (0.3 mm) than those treated with LON (3.6 mm). The rate of distraction was closer to the goal of 1 mm/day and more tightly controlled for the ILN cohort (1 mm/day) than that for the LON group (0.8 mm/day; SD, 0.2). Regenerate quality was not significantly different between the cohorts. Bone healing index for ILN was not statistically significant. Time to union was shorter in the ILN group (3.3 months) than that in the LON group (4.5 months). A lower percentage of patients experienced a complication in the ILN group (18%) than in the LON group (45%). Knee flexion at the end of distraction was greater for ILN patients (105°) than that for LON patients (88.8°), but this difference was no longer observed after 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS: Femoral lengthening with magnetic ILN was more accurate than with LON. The magnetic ILN comports the additional advantage of greater precision with distraction rate control and fewer complications. Both techniques afford reliable healing and do not significantly affect knee motion at the final follow-up. The magnetic ILN method showed no superiority in regenerate quality and healing rate.

Keywords: PRECICE; internal lengthening nail; lengthening over a nail; limb lengthening

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with Ethical StandardsAnton M. Kurtz, MD, Jonathan R. Barclay, BS, and Joseph Nguyen, MPH, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Austin T. Fragomen, MD, reports receiving persona

References

  1. HSS J. 2017 Jul;13(2):165-170 - PubMed
  2. Acta Orthop. 2014 Jun;85(3):293-8 - PubMed
  3. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan;91(1):152-9 - PubMed
  4. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Dec;466(12):2923-32 - PubMed
  5. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Oct;473(10):3143-53 - PubMed
  6. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Dec;466(12):3011-7 - PubMed
  7. J Orthop Res. 2006 Mar;24(3):339-47 - PubMed
  8. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan;469(1):244-50 - PubMed
  9. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2015 Fall;24(3):174-9 - PubMed
  10. Rev Bras Ortop. 2016 Dec 13;52(1):82-86 - PubMed
  11. Acta Orthop. 2015 Apr;86(2):248-56 - PubMed
  12. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Dec;472(12):3852-9 - PubMed
  13. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2005;70(2):91-6 - PubMed
  14. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Dec;472(12):3860-8 - PubMed
  15. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jun;470(6):1771-81 - PubMed
  16. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014 Jul;22(7):403-9 - PubMed
  17. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(5):504-9 - PubMed
  18. J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Jul;31(7):369-374 - PubMed
  19. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2015 Nov-Dec;17(6):587-92 - PubMed
  20. SICOT J. 2017;3:25 - PubMed
  21. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Apr;470(4):1221-31 - PubMed
  22. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Nov;467(11):2911-7 - PubMed
  23. J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Nov;25(11):681-4 - PubMed
  24. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Sep 2;97(17):1432-40 - PubMed
  25. HSS J. 2007 Feb;3(1):13-29 - PubMed
  26. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Dec;472(12):3869-78 - PubMed
  27. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015 May;12(3):231-49 - PubMed
  28. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Mar;85(2):261-4 - PubMed
  29. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2016 Aug;11(2):75-85 - PubMed
  30. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2016 Nov;11(3):199-205 - PubMed
  31. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Oct;79(10):1464-80 - PubMed

Publication Types