Meta-analysis of reamed versus unreamed intramedullary nailing for open tibial fractures

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Open fractures of the tibial diaphysis are usually caused by high-energy trauma and associated with severe bone and soft tissue injury. Reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing are often used for treatment of tibial injury. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of reamed versus unreamed intramedullary nailing for open tibial fractures (OTF).

Methods

A meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration using databases containing the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese VIP information, and WanFang Database. Randomized and semi-randomized controlled clinical trials of both reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for OTF treatment were analyzed using Reviewer Manager (RevMan5.0) software.

Results

A total of 695 references were initially identified from the selected databases. However, only four studies were assessed, matching all the eligibility criteria conducted by two independent reviewers. The result showed that there was no statistical difference in healing rate, secondary surgery rate, implant failure rate, osteofascial compartment syndrome, and infection during the postoperative period between reamed and unreamed nails in OTF.

Conclusions

Findings of this study suggest that there was no statistical difference between reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing in clinical treatment of OTF. However, the result of this meta-analysis should be cautiously accepted due to some limitations, and further studies are still needed.

Related collections

Most cited references 17

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures.

Mohit Bhandari, Gordon Guyatt, Paul Tornetta … (2008)

There remains a compelling biological rationale for both reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Previous small trials have left the evidence for either approach inconclusive. We compared reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing with regard to the rates of reoperations and complications in patients with tibial shaft fractures. We conducted a multicenter, blinded randomized trial of 1319 adults in whom a tibial shaft fracture was treated with either reamed or unreamed intramedullary nailing. Perioperative care was standardized, and reoperations for nonunion before six months were disallowed. The primary composite outcome measured at twelve months postoperatively included bone-grafting, implant exchange, and dynamization in patients with a fracture gap of <1 cm. Infection and fasciotomy were considered as part of the composite outcome, irrespective of the postoperative gap. One thousand two hundred and twenty-six participants (93%) completed one year of follow-up. Of these, 622 patients were randomized to reamed nailing and 604 patients were randomized to unreamed nailing. Among all patients, fifty-seven (4.6%) required implant exchange or bone-grafting because of nonunion. Among all patients, 105 in the reamed nailing group and 114 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary outcome event (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.15). In patients with closed fractures, forty-five (11%) of 416 in the reamed nailing group and sixty-eight (17%) of 410 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.96; p = 0.03). This difference was largely due to differences in dynamization. In patients with open fractures, sixty of 206 in the reamed nailing group and forty-six of 194 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.78; p = 0.16). The present study demonstrates a possible benefit for reamed intramedullary nailing in patients with closed fractures. We found no difference between approaches in patients with open fractures. Delaying reoperation for nonunion for at least six months may substantially decrease the need for reoperation.

0 comments Cited 74 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Intramedullary nailing of the lower extremity: biomechanics and biology.

Matthew Bong, Kenneth Egol, F Kummer … (2007)

The intramedullary nail or rod is commonly used for long-bone fracture fixation and has become the standard treatment of most long-bone diaphyseal and selected metaphyseal fractures. To best understand use of the intramedullary nail, a general knowledge of nail biomechanics and biology is helpful. These implants are introduced into the bone remote to the fracture site and share compressive, bending, and torsional loads with the surrounding osseous structures. Intramedullary nails function as internal splints that allow for secondary fracture healing. Like other metallic fracture fixation implants, a nail is subject to fatigue and can eventually break if bone healing does not occur. Intrinsic characteristics that affect nail biomechanics include its material properties, cross-sectional shape, anterior bow, and diameter. Extrinsic factors, such as reaming of the medullary canal, fracture stability (comminution), and the use and location of locking bolts also affect fixation biomechanics. Although reaming and the insertion of intramedullary nails can have early deleterious effects on endosteal and cortical blood flow, canal reaming appears to have several positive effects on the fracture site, such as increasing extraosseous circulation, which is important for bone healing.

0 comments Cited 47 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study.

H Broekhuyse, R. M. Dominic Meek, P Blachut … (1997)

Ninety-one patients who had ninety-four open fractures of the tibial shaft were randomized into two treatment groups. Fifty fractures (nine type-I, eighteen type-II, sixteen type-IIIA, and seven type-IIIB fractures, according to the classification of Gustilo et al.) were treated with nailing after reaming, and forty-four fractures (five type-I, sixteen type-II, nineteen type-IIIA, and four type-IIIB fractures) were treated with nailing without reaming. The average diameter of the nail was 11.5 millimeters (range, nine to fourteen millimeters) in the group treated with reaming and 9.2 millimeters (range, eight to ten millimeters) in the group treated without reaming. Follow-up information was adequate for forty-five patients (forty-seven fractures) who had been managed with reaming and forty patients (forty-one fractures) who had been managed without reaming. No clinically important differences were found between the two groups with regard to the technical aspects of the procedure or the rate of early postoperative complications. The average time to union was thirty weeks (range, thirteen to seventy-two weeks) in the group treated with reaming and twenty-nine weeks (range, thirteen to fifty weeks) in the group treated without reaming. Four (9 per cent) of the fractures treated with reaming and five (12 per cent) of the fractures treated without reaming did not unite (p = 0.73). There were two infections in the group treated with reaming and one in the group treated without reaming. Significantly more screws broke in the group treated without reaming (twelve; 29 per cent) than in the group treated with reaming (four; 9 per cent) (p = 0.014). There was no difference between the two groups with regard to the frequency of broken nails (two nails that had been inserted after reaming broke, compared with one that had been inserted without reaming). The functional outcome, in terms of pain in the knee, range of motion, return to work, and recreational activity, did not differ significantly between the groups. We concluded that the clinical and radiographic results of nailing after reaming are similar to those of nailing without reaming for fixation of open fractures of the tibial shaft, although more screws broke when reaming had not been done.

0 comments Cited 44 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Yinchu Shao

Hongxing Zou

Shaobo Chen

Jichun Shan

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Orthop Surg Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Orthop Surg Res

Title: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Publisher: BioMed Central

ISSN (Electronic): 1749-799X

Publication date Collection: 2014

Publication date (Electronic): 23 August 2014

Volume: 9

Page: 74

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Orthopaedics, The 94th Hospital of PLA, Nanchang 330002, Jiangxi, China

Article

Publisher ID: s13018-014-0074-7

DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0074-7

PMC ID: 4145248

PubMed ID: 25149501

SO-VID: 4606ae35-8e4b-47ad-8faa-30113a739694

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Meta-analysis of reamed versus unreamed intramedullary nailing for open tibial fractures

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

ScienceOpen Clinical Case Reports Collection

Most cited references 17

Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures.

Intramedullary nailing of the lower extremity: biomechanics and biology.

Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 1,088

Cited by 6

Most referenced authors 287