Comparative Outcomes of Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing vs. Plate Fixation in Pediatric Femoral Shaft Fractures. A Prospective Study.

Q3 Medicine
Omar Al-Doori, Mohammad Abdalla, Sail Zaid Alkhaion
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes of Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing vs. Plate Fixation in Pediatric Femoral Shaft Fractures. A Prospective Study.","authors":"Omar Al-Doori, Mohammad Abdalla, Sail Zaid Alkhaion","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0054.4650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pediatric femoral fractures are common in emergency rooms, with treatment options varying by age. This study compares elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) and plate fixation for diaphyseal femoral fractures in children aged 5-10.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Conducted at Al-Kindi Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, from December 2017 to December 2019, this prospective study included 32 children with closed transverse diaphyseal femoral fractures. Patients were divided into two groups: 16 treated with ESIN (Group 1) and 16 with plate fixation (Group 2). Criteria excluded comminuted, open, or pathological fractures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 1 had a mean age of 7.1 years and weight of 23.7 kg; Group 2 had a mean age of 7.8 years and weight of 30.9 kg. ESIN resulted in shorter operative times (58.4 minutes), earlier weight-bearing, and quicker fracture union (8.8 weeks) compared to plate fixation (76.3 minutes, 11.9 weeks). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (32.8 ml) versus Group 2 (205.0 ml). No significant differences in wound healing or leg length discrepancies were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>1. Our study indicates a preference for Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) over plate fixation for pediatric femoral shaft fractures in children aged 5-10 years. 2. ESIN is associated with shorter operative times and faster commencement of weight-bearing, critical in pediatric recovery. 3. While ESIN is generally preferable, plate fixation may be better suited in certain clinical scenarios, emphasizing the importance of personalized treatment. 4. Based on our findings, ESIN is recommended for treating transverse diaphyseal femur fractures in the specified pediatric age group. 5. Recommends further studies, including randomized controlled trials, for a more comprehensive understanding of these treatments' long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19622,"journal":{"name":"Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja","volume":"26 1","pages":"369-373"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.4650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pediatric femoral fractures are common in emergency rooms, with treatment options varying by age. This study compares elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) and plate fixation for diaphyseal femoral fractures in children aged 5-10.

Material and methods: Conducted at Al-Kindi Teaching Hospital, Baghdad, from December 2017 to December 2019, this prospective study included 32 children with closed transverse diaphyseal femoral fractures. Patients were divided into two groups: 16 treated with ESIN (Group 1) and 16 with plate fixation (Group 2). Criteria excluded comminuted, open, or pathological fractures.

Results: Group 1 had a mean age of 7.1 years and weight of 23.7 kg; Group 2 had a mean age of 7.8 years and weight of 30.9 kg. ESIN resulted in shorter operative times (58.4 minutes), earlier weight-bearing, and quicker fracture union (8.8 weeks) compared to plate fixation (76.3 minutes, 11.9 weeks). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (32.8 ml) versus Group 2 (205.0 ml). No significant differences in wound healing or leg length discrepancies were observed.

Conclusions: 1. Our study indicates a preference for Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) over plate fixation for pediatric femoral shaft fractures in children aged 5-10 years. 2. ESIN is associated with shorter operative times and faster commencement of weight-bearing, critical in pediatric recovery. 3. While ESIN is generally preferable, plate fixation may be better suited in certain clinical scenarios, emphasizing the importance of personalized treatment. 4. Based on our findings, ESIN is recommended for treating transverse diaphyseal femur fractures in the specified pediatric age group. 5. Recommends further studies, including randomized controlled trials, for a more comprehensive understanding of these treatments' long-term outcomes.

弹性稳定髓内钉与钢板固定治疗小儿股骨柄骨折的疗效比较。前瞻性研究。
背景:小儿股骨骨折是急诊室的常见病,不同年龄段的治疗方案各不相同。本研究比较了弹性稳定髓内钉(ESIN)和钢板固定治疗 5-10 岁儿童股骨骺骨折的方法:这项前瞻性研究于 2017 年 12 月至 2019 年 12 月在巴格达 Al-Kindi 教学医院进行,共纳入 32 名患有闭合性横向股骨骺骨折的儿童。患者分为两组:16 名接受 ESIN 治疗(第 1 组),16 名接受钢板固定治疗(第 2 组)。标准不包括粉碎性、开放性或病理性骨折:第一组的平均年龄为 7.1 岁,体重为 23.7 千克;第二组的平均年龄为 7.8 岁,体重为 30.9 千克。与钢板固定(76.3分钟,11.9周)相比,ESIN手术时间更短(58.4分钟),负重更早,骨折愈合更快(8.8周)。第一组的失血量(32.8 毫升)明显少于第二组(205.0 毫升)。伤口愈合或腿长差异无明显差异:1.我们的研究表明,对于 5-10 岁的儿童股骨干骨折,弹性稳定髓内钉(ESIN)比钢板固定更受欢迎。2.2. ESIN能缩短手术时间,更快地开始负重,这对儿科康复至关重要。3.虽然 ESIN 通常更可取,但在某些临床情况下,钢板固定可能更合适,这强调了个性化治疗的重要性。4.4. 根据我们的研究结果,在治疗特定儿童年龄组的股骨骺横向骨折时,推荐使用 ESIN。5.5. 建议开展进一步研究,包括随机对照试验,以便更全面地了解这些治疗方法的长期疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja
Ortopedia, traumatologia, rehabilitacja Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信