Complications of Albizzia femoral lengthening nail

Mazeau, Philippe; Assi, Chahine; Louahem, Djamel; L’Kaissi, Mohamed; Delpont, Marion; Cottalorda, J.

doi:10.1097/bpb.0b013e328354b029

Cited by 30 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…runaway nails and nondistracting nails), the marketing of this nail was temporarily revoked in USA (1, 4, 14-16). Difficulties and pain with the distraction mechanism and the risk of distraction stop are important problems reported for the Albizzia nail (DePuy, Villeurbanne, France) (17, 18). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limb Lengthening Using the PRECICETM Nail System: Complications and Results

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThree types of telescopic nails are mainly used for intramedullary limb lengthening nowadays. Despite some important advantages of this new technology (e.g. controlled distraction rate, not restricted availability, possibility to perform accordion maneuvers), few articles exist on clinical results and complications after lengthening with the PRECICETM nail (Ellipse, USA).ObjectivesThe aim of the current study was to describe and analyze the complications associated with lengthening with the PRECICETM nail. Are the problems preventable when using the PRECICE, related to the distraction rate control, the lengthening goals and technique and handling?MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of 9 patients operated between 2012 and 2013 with a PRECICETM nail for a leg length discrepancy (LLD). The mean age of the patients was 32 years (range, 17 - 48 years). There were 5 femoral and 4 tibial procedures. The causes of LLD were posttraumatic (n = 5) and congenital (n = 4). The mean LLD was 36.4 ± 11.4 mm. The minimum follow-ups were 2 months (average, 5 months; range, 2 - 9 months).ResultsThe mean distraction rate was 0.5 ± 0.1 mm/day. We observed in 7 patients differences in achieving the lengthening goals (average, 1.6 mm; range, -20.0 - 5.0 mm). Average lengthening was 34.7 ± 10.7 mm. All patients reached normal alignment and normal joint orientation. An unintentional loss of the achieved length during the consolidation phase was noticed in patients with delayed bone healing in two cases. In the first case (loss of 20mm distraction) the nail could be redistracted and the goal length was achieved. In the second case (loss of 10mm distraction) the nail broke shortly after the diagnosis and the nail was exchanged.ConclusionsWe report of loss of achieved length after lengthening with a telescopic nail. Weight bearing before complete consolidation of the regenerate might be a risk factor for that. Thorough examination of the limb length and careful evaluation of the radiographs are required in the follow-up period. The PRECICE nail system requires the same vigilance like the other intramedullary systems too.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limb Lengthening Using the PRECICETM Nail System: Complications and Results

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10,11 However, patient refusal to rotate the limb, particularly with the Albizzia nail, and an inability to accurately control rate of distraction with the ISKD can cause significant complications. [15][16][17] Clinical case series on the Fitbone nail report favorable outcomes and patient satisfaction, with relatively few instances of mechanical failure of the implant or problems with distraction. [15][16][17] Clinical case series on the Fitbone nail report favorable outcomes and patient satisfaction, with relatively few instances of mechanical failure of the implant or problems with distraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18,19 Early studies on the PRECICE nail have reported high rates of accuracy of distraction, maintenance of joint motion and bone alignment, and few complications. [15][16][17] Modern motorized IM nail designs use a magnetic or electrical remote control to distract the bone, and early surgical outcomes have been promising. Early designs for fully mechanical nails produced unreliable results and complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motorized Intramedullary Nail for Management of Limb-length Discrepancy and Deformity

Rozbruch

Birch

Dahl

et al. 2014

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distraction osteogenesis has been used for more than 50 years to address limb-length discrepancy and deformity. Intramedullary fixation has been used in conjunction with external fixation to decrease the time in the external fixator and prevent deformity and refracture. A new generation of motorized intramedullary nails is now available to treat limb-length discrepancy and deformity. These nails provide bone fragment stabilization and lengthening with reliable remote-controlled mechanisms, obviating the need for external fixation. Motorized intramedullary nails allow accurate, well-controlled distraction, and early clinical results have been positive.

show abstract

“…Albizzia ® uses a patient's limb movements to acquire the mechanical forces needed for distraction but has been associated with premature consolidation, disproportionate fracture healing and nail rupture. [20][21][22] Fitbone ® is a motorised nail system driven by an external electronic controller but has been shown to lead to poor bone regeneration, pain during distraction and ROM restrictions. [23][24][25] It also does not have the capability to back up the nail which is available with the PRECICE ® Limb Lengthening System and useful in cases of poor regenerate formation or over distraction, although this was never required during this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%