These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: What Are the Potential Benefits and Risks of Using Magnetically Driven Antegrade Intramedullary Lengthening Nails for Femoral Lengthening to Treat Leg Length Discrepancy?
    Author: Frommer A, Roedl R, Gosheger G, Niemann M, Turkowski D, Toporowski G, Theil C, Laufer A, Vogt B.
    Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2022 Apr 01; 480(4):790-803. PubMed ID: 34780384.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Limb lengthening with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails is a fast-developing field and represents an alternative to external fixators. Although previous studies have assessed the application of magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails, these studies have been heterogenous regarding the nailing approach, the bone treated, and the implant type; they also have analyzed relatively small patient groups at short follow-up durations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is femoral lengthening with magnetically driven antegrade intramedullary lengthening nails accurate and precise? (2) What are the most common complications of treatment? (3) What factors are associated with unplanned additional surgery? METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the longitudinally maintained database of our orthopaedic teaching hospital to identify all patients who underwent surgery for leg length discrepancy (LLD) between October 2014 and April 2019. In total, we surgically treated 323 patients for LLD of 2 cm or more. Of those 55% (177 of 323) were treated with distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails, 18% (59 of 323) with external fixation, and 27% (87 of 323) with epiphysiodesis around the knee. Based on that, 29% (93 of 323) of patients underwent unilateral femoral distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven antegrade femoral lengthening nails and were eligible for analysis. No patient was excluded, and 3% (3 of 93) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years, leaving 97% (90 of 93) for analysis. Patients with a distal femoral deformity were treated via a retrograde femoral approach (10% [33 of 323]) or with external fixators (3% [10 of 323]) and were not included in this study. Distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails was not considered for patients with deep tissue infection, those with bone dimensions considered to be too small in relation to the available implants, and for patients younger than 8 years. This study included 90 patients (44 females, 43 left femora) treated for a median (interquartile range) preoperative LLD of 39 mm (32 to 52) at a median age of 15 years (14 to 17). The same limb lengthening system was applied in all patients. The median (IQR) follow-up was 35 months (24 to 78). Data were acquired through a chart review performed by someone not involved in the surgical care of the included patients. Data acquisition was supervised and curated by two of the involved surgeons. Accuracy was calculated as 100 - [(achieved distraction in mm - planned distraction in mm) / (planned distraction in mm) x 100] and precision as 100 - (relative standard deviation of accuracy). Treatment-associated complications were summarized descriptively and characterized as complications resulting in unplanned additional surgery or those not resulting in unplanned surgery. To analyze the risk of unplanned additional surgery by entity, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) comparing the incidence of unplanned additional surgery in the different entity cohorts with the idiopathic LLD cohort as a reference. By calculating ORs, we analyzed the risk for unplanned additional surgery depending on sex, age, surgery time, and previous lengthening. Due to the lack of long-term evidence about motorized lengthening nails remaining in situ and concerns about potential implant-related adverse effects, removal was routinely scheduled 1 year after consolidation. For implant removal, 92% (83 of 90) of patients underwent planned additional surgery, which was not recorded as an adverse event of the treatment. Ninety-seven percent (87 of 90) of patients completed lengthening with the implant remaining in situ until the end of distraction. The median (IQR) distraction length was 37 mm (30 to 45) with a median distraction index of 0.9 mm/day (0.7 to 1.0) and median consolidation index of 31 days/cm (25 to 42). RESULTS: The calculated accuracy and precision were 94% and 90%, respectively. In total, 76% (68 of 90) of our patients experienced complications, which resulted in 20% (18 of 90) of patients undergoing unplanned additional surgery. The most common complication overall was adjustment of the distraction rate in 27% (24 of 90) of patients (faster: 16% [14 of 90]; slower: 11% [10 of 90]) and temporary restriction of knee motion, which occurred in 20% (18 of 90) of our patients and resolved in all patients who experienced it. The most serious complications were bacterial osteomyelitis and knee subluxation, which occurred in 3% (3 of 90) and 1% (1 of 90) of our patients, respectively. With the numbers available, we found only one factor associated with an increased likelihood of unplanned additional surgery: Patients with postinfectious LLD had higher odds of unplanned additional surgery than patients with idiopathic LLD (7% [1 of 15] versus 50% [3 of 6], OR 14.0 [95% CI 1.06 to 185.49]; p = 0.02). However, we caution readers this finding is fragile, and the confidence interval suggests that the effect size estimate is likely to be imprecise. CONCLUSION: Femoral distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven antegrade intramedullary lengthening nails appears to be an accurate and reliable treatment for femoral lengthening. However, depending on the etiology, a high risk of unplanned additional surgery should be anticipated, and a high proportion of patients will experience temporary joint stiffness. We recommend close orthopaedic follow-up and physiotherapy during treatment. This treatment of LLD can be considered alongside other nails, external fixators, and epiphysiodesis. Multicenter studies comparing this with other approaches are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]