Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
HSS Journal ®
Published in: HSS Journal ® 2/2018

01-07-2018 | Original Article

A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail

Authors: Austin T. Fragomen, MD, Anton M. Kurtz, MD, Jonathan R. Barclay, BS, Joseph Nguyen, MPH, S. Robert Rozbruch, MD

Published in: HSS Journal ® | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Bone lengthening with an internal lengthening nail (ILN) avoids the need for external fixation and requires one less surgical procedure than lengthening over a nail (LON). However, LON has been shown to be superior to femoral internal lengthening using a mechanical nail. The magnetic ILN, a remote-controlled and magnet-driven device, may have overcome the weaknesses of earlier internal lengthening technology and may be superior to LON.

Questions/Purposes

(1) Is the magnetic ILN more accurate than LON for femoral lengthening? (2) Does the magnetic ILN demonstrate more precise distraction rate control than LON? (3) Does the magnetic ILN result in faster regenerate site healing, with more robust callus, than LON? (4) Does the magnetic ILN result in fewer complications, including impediments to knee motion, than LON?

Methods

We conducted a retrospective comparison of the records and radiographs of 21 consecutive patients with 22 femoral lengthenings using LONs and 35 consecutive patients with 40 femoral lengthenings using remote-controlled magnetic ILNs. Primary outcomes measured included accuracy, distraction rate precision, time to bony union, final knee range of motion, regenerate quality, and complications. The minimum follow-up times for the LON and ILN cohorts were 13 and 21 months, respectively.

Results

Patients treated with ILN had a lower post-treatment residual limb-length discrepancy (0.3 mm) than those treated with LON (3.6 mm). The rate of distraction was closer to the goal of 1 mm/day and more tightly controlled for the ILN cohort (1 mm/day) than that for the LON group (0.8 mm/day; SD, 0.2). Regenerate quality was not significantly different between the cohorts. Bone healing index for ILN was not statistically significant. Time to union was shorter in the ILN group (3.3 months) than that in the LON group (4.5 months). A lower percentage of patients experienced a complication in the ILN group (18%) than in the LON group (45%). Knee flexion at the end of distraction was greater for ILN patients (105°) than that for LON patients (88.8°), but this difference was no longer observed after 1 year.

Conclusions

Femoral lengthening with magnetic ILN was more accurate than with LON. The magnetic ILN comports the additional advantage of greater precision with distraction rate control and fewer complications. Both techniques afford reliable healing and do not significantly affect knee motion at the final follow-up. The magnetic ILN method showed no superiority in regenerate quality and healing rate.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Bernstein M, Fragomen AT, Sabharwal S, Barclay J, Rozbruch SR. Does integrated fixation provide benefit in the reconstruction of posttraumatic tibial bone defects? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(10):3143–3153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Bhave A, Shabtai L, Woelber E, Apelyan A, Paley D, Herzenberg JE. Muscle strength and knee range of motion after femoral lengthening. Acta Orthop. 2016;28:1–6.
3.
Black SR, Kwon MS, Cherkashin AM, Samchukov ML, Birch JG, Jo CH. Lengthening in congenital femoral deficiency: a comparison of circular external fixation and a motorized intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(17):1432–1440.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Fernandes HP, Barronovo DG, Rodrigues FL, Hono M. Femur lengthening with monoplanar external fixator associated with locked intramedullary nail Rev Bras Ortop. 2016;52(1):82–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Lengthening of the femur with a remote controlled magnetic intramedullary nail: retrograde technique. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2016;6(2): e20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Lengthening and deformity correction about the knee using a magnetic internal lengthening nail. SICOT J. 2017;3(25):1–10.
8.
Fragomen AT, Miller AO, Brause BD, Goldman V, Rozbruch SR. Prophylactic post operative antibiotics may not reduce pin site infections after external fixation. HSS J. 2017;13(2):165–170.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Hammouda AI, Jauregui JJ, Gesheff MG, Standard SC, Conway JD, Herzenberg JE. Treatment of post traumatic femoral discrepancy with PRECICE magnetic powered intramedullary lengthening nails J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(7): 369–374.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Harbacheuski R, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Does lengthening and plating shorten duration of external fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(6):1771–1781.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Hosalkar HS, Jones S, Chowdhury M, Hartley J, Hill RA. Quadricepsplasty for knee stiffness after femoral lengthening in congenital short femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(2):261–264.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Iobst CA, Dahl MT. Limb lengthening with submuscular plate stabilization: a case series and description of the technique. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007;27(5):504–509.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kawoosa AA, Wani IH, Dar FA, Sultan A, Qazi M, Halwai MA. Deformity correction about knee with Ilizarov technique: accuracy of correction and effectiveness of gradual distraction after conventional straight cut osteotomy. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2015;17(6):587–592.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kazmers NH, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Prevention of pin site infection in external fixation: a review of the literature. Strat Trauma Limb Recon 2016;11:75–85.CrossRef
16.
Khakharia S, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Limited quadsplasty for contracture during femoral lengthening. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2009;467(11):2911–2917.CrossRef
17.
Khakharia S, Bigman D, Fragomen AT, Pavlov H, Rozbruch SR. Comparison of PACS and hard-copy 51-inch radiographs for measuring leg length and deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:244–250.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kim HJ, Fragomen AT, Reinhardt K, Hutson JJ, Rozbruch SR. Lengthening of the femur over an existing IM nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:681–684.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Kocaoglu M, Eralp L, Bilen FE, Balci HI. Fixator-assisted acute femoral deformity correction and consecutive lengthening over an intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):152–159.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Koczewski P, Shadi M. Repair of the knee extension apparatus in the treatment of knee extension contracture after femoral lengthening. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2005;70(2):91–96.PubMed
22.
Landge V, Shabtai L, Gesheff M, Specht SC, Herzenberg JE. Patient Satisfaction After Limb Lengthening with Internal and External Devices. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2015;24(3):174–179.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lee DH, Ryu KJ, Song HR, Han SH. Complications of the Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor (ISKD) in distraction osteogenesis Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(12):3852–3859.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Li R, Saleh M, Yang L, Coulton L. Radiographic classification of osteogenesis during bone distraction. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:339–347.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Mahboubian S, Seah M, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Femoral lengthening with lengthening over a nail has fewer complications than intramedullary skeletal kinetic distraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1221–1231.CrossRefPubMed
26.
McCarthy JJ, Ranade A, Davidson RS. Pediatric deformity correction using a multiaxial correction fixator. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(12):3011–3017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Muthusamy S, Rozbruch SR, Fragomen AT. The use of blocking screws with internal lengthening nail and reverse rule of thumbs for blocking screws in limb lengthening and deformity correction surgery. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstruct. 2016;11(3):199–205CrossRef
28.
Paley D. PRECICE intramedullary limb lengthening system Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(3):231–249.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Paley D, Herzenberg JE, Paremain G, Bhave A. Femoral lengthening over an intramedullary nail. A matched-case comparison with Ilizarov femoral lengthening J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(10):1464–1480.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Paley D, Harris M, Debiparshad K, Prince D. Limb lengthening by implantable limb lengthening devices. Tech Orthop. 2014;29(2):72–85CrossRef
31.
Rozbruch SR, Fragomen AT. Lengthening of the femur with a remote-controlled magnetic intramedullary nail: antegrade technique. JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques. 2016;6:e2–e2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Rozbruch SR, Kleinman D, Fragomen A, Ilizarov S. Limb lengthening and then insertion of an intramedullary nail. A case matched comparison. Clin Orthop. 2008;466(12):2923–2932.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Rozbruch SR, Birch JG, Dahl MT, Herzenberg JE. Motorized intramedullary nail for management of limb-length discrepancy and deformity. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22:403–409.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Schiedel FM, Vogt B, Tretow HL, Schuhknecht B, Gosheger G, Horter MJ, Rödl R. How precise is the PRECICE compared to the ISKD in intramedullary limb lengthening? Reliability and safety in 26 procedures. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:293–298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Shabtai L, Specht SC, Standard SC, Herzenberg JE. Internal lengthening device for congenital femoral deficiency and fibular hemimelia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(12):3860–3868.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail
Authors
Austin T. Fragomen, MD
Anton M. Kurtz, MD
Jonathan R. Barclay, BS
Joseph Nguyen, MPH
S. Robert Rozbruch, MD
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
HSS Journal ® / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1556-3316
Electronic ISSN: 1556-3324
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

HSS Journal ® 2/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Bariatric Surgery Following Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Increases the Risk for Mechanical Complications Including Instability and Prosthetic Loosening

Reply to letter to the editor

Analysis of Player Statistics in Major League Baseball Players Before and After Achilles Tendon Repair

Evidence Based Review in Orthopedics

Component Placement Accuracy in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Is Improved with Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Will It Have an Effect on Outcomes?

Surgical Technique

A Comparison of Two Arthroscopic Techniques for Interpositional Polytetrafluoroethylene Patch Repair for Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Speed and Biomechanics

Original Article

Effects of Abduction Pillows on Rotator Cuff Repair: A Biomechanical Analysis

Original Article

The Root-Ely Modified Test of Rectus Femoris Spasticity Has Reliability in Individuals with Cerebral Palsy