2013
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3293-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Efficacy of Single-stage Open Intramedullary Nailing of Neglected Femur Fractures

Abstract: One-stage open intramedullary nailing of neglected femoral diaphyseal fractures without bone grafting was safe and effective, and obviated the need for a two-stage approach. Although the findings need to be replicated in larger numbers of patients, we believe this technique may be useful in treating patients with this injury, and may offer advantages in resource-constrained environments.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At 61 days, traction length of hospital stay reported in this study is similar to other studies conducted in LMICs (52-66 days) [12,[17][18][19]. However, the duration of hospital stay for IM nailing (36 days) was longer than previous reports [28][29][30] primarily due to a nearly 3 weeks delay from admission to surgery. These long delays were related to the limited availability of implants, surgical personnel and operating room space.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…At 61 days, traction length of hospital stay reported in this study is similar to other studies conducted in LMICs (52-66 days) [12,[17][18][19]. However, the duration of hospital stay for IM nailing (36 days) was longer than previous reports [28][29][30] primarily due to a nearly 3 weeks delay from admission to surgery. These long delays were related to the limited availability of implants, surgical personnel and operating room space.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…The results of our study are quite comparable to other studies done about this procedure. 8,15 The study by Boopalan et al was conducted on 17 patients while our study was conducted on 20 patients, the average time to union was 16 weeks while in our study it was 22.6 weeks which is favourably comparable. 8 The study by Akinyoola et al was conducted on 52 patients and average time to union was 20 weeks, though the sample size of this study was much larger than our 20 patients, but its results compare quite favourably to our study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of open intramedullary nailing of femur, especially in neglected cases. [6][7][8] In the present study we evaluated the effectiveness of single stage open interlocking intramedullary nailing in neglected fracture shaft of femur patients through the assessment of attainment of union of the fracture and functional results of the limb.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In another study, a secondstage open tissue release and fracture reduction were adopted for intramedullary nailing after preoperative skeletal traction, but bone grafting was needed, which increased surgery complication and medical cost greatly 5 . A recent study reported that a single-stage open nailing technique using judicious bone resection and manual traction could be applied intraoperatively without preoperative skeletal traction 10 . However, this open reduction and fixation resulted in more tissue injury and blood loss with higher potential infection risk 5,10 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent study reported that a single-stage open nailing technique using judicious bone resection and manual traction could be applied intraoperatively without preoperative skeletal traction 10 . However, this open reduction and fixation resulted in more tissue injury and blood loss with higher potential infection risk 5,10 . Actually, the main obstacle for closed intramedullary nailing is the laborious reduction of the fracture intraoperatively because of the limited strength of the local distractor or traction table 7,11,12 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%