Skip to main content
Log in

Interlocking nailing of forearm fractures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: With the exception of forearm fractures, intramedullary techniques are preferred for osteosynthesis in the case of long-bone fractures. For the latter, however, the main problem remains insufficient stability against torsional forces resulting in high rates of non-union. This is why plate osteosynthesis by means of a DCP 3.5 or LC-DCP 3.5 is still being described as the standard procedure. Materials and methods: In a prospective study, 32 patients (33 forearms) with fractures of one or both forearm bones were treated by implantation of 40 intramedullary ForeSight nails (ulna: 23; radius: 17). Clinical and radiographic follow-up was performed at 6, 12, 26, and—if needed—52 weeks postoperatively. Time to follow-up was 31.4 months on average (range 24–44 months). Results: The average time to fracture healing for 36 fractures of 29 patients was 4.4 months. A free range of motion was seen in 86%, and only four forearms had a loss of pronation and supination. DASH score averaged at 13.7. There were few complications: non-union 1, delayed union 2, radioulnar synostosis 2, and infections 0. No refracture was seen after 19 implant removals so far. Average time needed per operation was 67 min, average time for fluoroscopy was 4.4 min. Conclusion: This intramedullary nail can do justice to the specific anatomical needs in the case of the forearm. Static interlocking guarantees adequate stability in all fracture types. The surgical technique is demanding. Nonetheless, this system can yield results of comparable quality to those of plate osteosynthesis. So far, no refractures after removal of the implants and no complications connected with the actual implants have been observed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bauer G, Arand M, Mutschler W (1991) Post-traumatic radioulnar synostosis after forearm fracture osteosynthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 110:142–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bednar DA, Grandwilewski W (1991) Complications of forearm-plate removal. Can J Surg 35:428–431

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chapman MW, Gordon JE, Zissimos AG (1989) Compression-plate fixation of acute fractures of the diaphyses of the radius and ulna. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 71:159–169

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Deluca PA, Lindsey RW, Ruwe PA (1988) Refracture of bones of the forearm after the removal of compression plates. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 70:1372–1376

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. DePedro JA, Garcia-Navarrete F, Garcia De Lucas F, Otero R, Oteo A, Lopez-Duran-Stern L (1990) Internal fixation of ulnar fractures by locking nail. Clin Orthop 283:81–85

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gustilo RB, Gruniger RP, Davis T (1987) Classification of type III (severe) open fractures relative to treatment and results. Orthopaedics 10:1781–1788

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hertel R, Pisan M, Lambert S, Ballmer FT (1996) Plate osteosynthesis of diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. Injury 27:545–548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hidaka S, Gustilo RB (1984) Refracture of bones of the forearm after plate removal. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 66:1241–1243

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, The Upper Extremity Collaborative group (UECG) (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones DJ, Henley MB, Schemitsch EH, Tencer AF (1995) A biomechanical comparison of two methods of fixation of fractures of the forearm. J Orthop Trauma 9:198–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Krettek C, Schandelmaier P, Tscherne H (1997) Neue Entwicklungen bei der Stabilisierung dia- und metaphysärer Frakturen der langen Röhrenknochen. Orthopäde 26:408–421

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Labosky DA, Cermak MB, Waggy CA (1990) Forearm fracture plates: to remove or not to remove. J Hand Surg 15:294–301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Matthews LS, Kaufer H, Garver DF, Sonstegard DA (1982) The effect on supination-pronation of angular malalignment of fractures of both bones of the forearm. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 64:14–17

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McAuliffe JA (1997) Forearm fixation. Hand Clin 13:689–701

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mih AD, Coone WP, Idler RS, Lewallen DG (1994) Long-term follow-up of forearm bone diaphyseal plating. Clin Orthop 299:256–258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenegger H (1991) Manual of internal fixation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oestern HJ, Tscherne H (1983) Ergebnisse der AO-Sammelstudie über Unterarmschaftfrakturen. Unfallchirurg 86:136–146

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosson JW, Shearer JR (1991) Refracture after the removal of plates from the forearm. An avoidable complication. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 73:415–417

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rumball K, Finnegan M (1990) Refractures after forearm plate removal. J Orthop Trauma 4:124–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schemitsch EH, Jones D, Henley MB, Tencer AF (1995) A comparison of malreduction after plate and intramedullary nail fixation of forearm fractures. J Orthop Trauma 9:8–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schöne G (1913) Zur Behandlung von Vorderarmfrakturen mit Bolzung. Münch Med Wochenschr 60:2327–2328

    Google Scholar 

  22. Street DM (1986) Intramedullary forearm nailing. Clin Orthop 212:219–230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tabor OB, Bosse MJ, Sims SH, Kellam JF (1995) Iatrogenic posterior interosseous nerve injury: is transosseous static locked nailing of the radius feasible? J Orthop Trauma 9:427–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Winckler S, Brug E, Baranowski D (1991) Bündelnagelung bei Unterarmfrakturen. Indikation und Ergebnisse. Unfallchirurg 94:335–341

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Weckbach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weckbach, A., Blattert, T.R. & Weißer, C. Interlocking nailing of forearm fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126, 309–315 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0122-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0122-9

Keywords

Navigation