Comparing the Outcomes of Titanium and Stainless Steel Flexible Nails in Repairing Pediatric Long Bone Fractures.

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-05-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.116898
Mazen Zamzam, Novelpreet Bopari, Avianna Arapovic, Suzan Kamel-ElSayed, Ehab S Saleh
{"title":"Comparing the Outcomes of Titanium and Stainless Steel Flexible Nails in Repairing Pediatric Long Bone Fractures.","authors":"Mazen Zamzam, Novelpreet Bopari, Avianna Arapovic, Suzan Kamel-ElSayed, Ehab S Saleh","doi":"10.52965/001c.116898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, pediatric femoral fracture treatment favored conservative methods, relying on casting and the inherent bone remodeling ability in immature bones. Surgical intervention was deferred until age 6, as nonoperative approaches often resulted in complications. Titanium elastic nailing (TENS) emerged as an effective treatment for diaphyseal femoral fractures in ages 6 to 16. However, the choice between TENS and stainless steel elastic nailing (SSENS) remains debated due to inconsistent findings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of both nailing systems in pediatric long bone fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review at William Beaumont Hospital Royal Oak included 83 patients aged 6 to 16 treated with TENS or SSENS between January 2011 and January 2021. Data collected encompassed nail related issues, time to fracture union, full weight bearing, and nail removal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the TENS group (n=29), the average age was 8.8±2.4 years, and the average BMI was 17.2±3.4. The SSENS group (n=54) had an average age of 9.3±2.7 and an average BMI of 19.7±8.4. Time to fracture union for TENS was 93.8±60.5 days, while SSENS was 82.2±40.0 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found no statistically significant differences in nail-related complications, time to fracture union, full weight bearing, or nail removal between TENS and SSENS in pediatric long bone fractures. The choice between these systems should be based on individual circumstances. Limitations include a small sample size and the study's retrospective nature.</p>","PeriodicalId":19669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Reviews","volume":"16 ","pages":"116898"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11093719/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.116898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, pediatric femoral fracture treatment favored conservative methods, relying on casting and the inherent bone remodeling ability in immature bones. Surgical intervention was deferred until age 6, as nonoperative approaches often resulted in complications. Titanium elastic nailing (TENS) emerged as an effective treatment for diaphyseal femoral fractures in ages 6 to 16. However, the choice between TENS and stainless steel elastic nailing (SSENS) remains debated due to inconsistent findings.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of both nailing systems in pediatric long bone fractures.

Methods: A retrospective chart review at William Beaumont Hospital Royal Oak included 83 patients aged 6 to 16 treated with TENS or SSENS between January 2011 and January 2021. Data collected encompassed nail related issues, time to fracture union, full weight bearing, and nail removal.

Results: In the TENS group (n=29), the average age was 8.8±2.4 years, and the average BMI was 17.2±3.4. The SSENS group (n=54) had an average age of 9.3±2.7 and an average BMI of 19.7±8.4. Time to fracture union for TENS was 93.8±60.5 days, while SSENS was 82.2±40.0 days.

Conclusion: This study found no statistically significant differences in nail-related complications, time to fracture union, full weight bearing, or nail removal between TENS and SSENS in pediatric long bone fractures. The choice between these systems should be based on individual circumstances. Limitations include a small sample size and the study's retrospective nature.

比较钛合金和不锈钢柔性钉在修复小儿长骨骨折中的效果。
背景:传统上,小儿股骨骨折的治疗偏向于保守疗法,依靠石膏固定和未成熟骨骼固有的骨重塑能力。由于非手术治疗往往会导致并发症,因此手术治疗被推迟到 6 岁以后。钛弹性钉(TENS)是治疗 6 至 16 岁股骨骺骨折的有效方法。然而,由于研究结果不一致,对于如何选择钛弹性钉和不锈钢弹性钉仍存在争议:本研究旨在评估两种钉系统对小儿长骨骨折的有效性:威廉-博蒙特医院皇家橡树分院的一项回顾性病历审查纳入了2011年1月至2021年1月期间接受TENS或SSENS治疗的83名6至16岁患者。收集的数据包括钉子相关问题、骨折愈合时间、完全负重和拔钉:TENS组(29人)的平均年龄为(8.8±2.4)岁,平均体重指数为(17.2±3.4)。SSENS组(n=54)的平均年龄为(9.3±2.7)岁,平均体重指数为(19.7±8.4)。TENS组的骨折愈合时间为93.8±60.5天,而SSENS组为82.2±40.0天:本研究发现,在小儿长骨骨折中,TENS和SSENS在钉子相关并发症、骨折愈合时间、完全负重或拔出钉子方面均无明显统计学差异。应根据个人情况选择这两种系统。研究的局限性包括样本量较小和研究的回顾性。
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
Orthopedic Reviews
Orthopedic Reviews ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
122
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Reviews is an Open Access, online-only, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles concerned with any aspect of orthopedics, as well as diagnosis and treatment, trauma, surgical procedures, arthroscopy, sports medicine, rehabilitation, pediatric and geriatric orthopedics. All bone-related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology papers are also welcome. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, reviews and case reports of general interest.
×
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