Abstract
Aim
The aim of this study is to show whether a new magnetic-guided locking technique is superior to a standard freehand technique in terms of operation time and radiation exposure. This treatment will be used for distal locking of the tibia during intramedullary nailing.
Methods
This randomized trial is done through 80 patients having tibial fractures with a mean age of 25 years (range 16–67 years). In the magnetic locking group, there were 20 fractures of the distal third, 16 of the shaft, and 4 of the proximal tibia; in the freehand group, these numbers were 15, 20, and 5, respectively. The parameters like operation time, distal locking time, radiation exposure duration, and dose were compared.
Results
We placed 100 distal locking screws in the magnetic locking group and 95 in the freehand group. Fluoroscopy was necessary only in the freehand group. All screws were correctly positioned the first time in both groups. The magnetic locking group had a shorter mean surgical time (52 ± 6.2 vs 70 ± 10.9 min; P < 0.01), a shorter mean distal locking time (5 ± 1.1 vs 16 ± 2.0 min; P < 0.01), and a shorter mean placement time for each screw (2 ± 0.5 vs 7 ± 1.2 min; P < 0.01). The magnetic locking group had lower mean radiation exposures (8 ± 4.5 vs 40 ± 7.6 s; P < 0.01) and mean radiation exposure (5.4 ± 2.5 vs 25 ± 6.8 mGy range; P < 0.01).
Conclusions
For distal locking during tibial intramedullary nailing, the magnetic locking system is as accurate as the standard freehand technique, but it has lower operative times and radiation exposures compared to the standard freehand technique. Therefore, the magnetic locking system should be preferred to current standard freehand techniques.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Bong MR, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ et al (2007) Intramedullary nailing of the lower extremity: biomechanics and biology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:97–106
Abdlslam KM, Bonnaire F (2003) Experimental model for a new distal locking aiming device for solid intramedullary tibial nails. Injury 34:363–366
Knothe U, Tate ML, Klaue K et al (2000) Development and testing of a new self- locking intramedullary nail system: testing of handling aspects and mechanical properties. Injury 31:617–626
Babis GC, Benetos IS, Zoubos AB et al (2007) The effectiveness of the external distal aiming device in intramedullary fixation of tibial shaft fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127:905–908
Gugala Z, Nana A, Lindsey RW (2001) Tibial intramedullary nail distal interlocking screw placement; comparison of the free-hand versus distally-based targeting device techniques. Injury 32:21–25
Krettek C, Könemann B, Farouk O et al (1998) Experimental study of distal interlocking of a solid tibial nail: radiation-independent distal aiming device (DAD) versus freehand technique (FHT). J Orthop Trauma 12:373–378
Krettek C, Könemann B, Miclau T et al (1998) A new mechanical aiming device for the placement of distal interlocking screws in femoral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 117:147–152
Lepore L, Lepore S, Maffulli N (2003) Intramedullary nailing of the femur with an inflatable self-locking nail: comparison with locked nailing. J Orthop Sci 8:796–801
Pardiwala D, Prabhu V, Dudhniwala G et al (2001) The AO distal locking aiming device: an evaluation of efficacy and learning curve. Injury 32:713–718
Reynders P, Schonken P, Hoogmartens M (1990) Interlocking nail: a practical aiming device for the distal screw insertion. Arch Orthop Belg 56:605–608
Tyropoulos S, Garraros C (2001) A new distal targeting device for closed interlocking nailing. Injury 32:732–735
Whatling GM, Nokes LDM (2006) Literature review of current techniques for the insertion of distal screws into intramedullary locking nails. Injury 37:109–119
Saw Y (1993) Closed intramedullary distal locking made easier. Injury 24:214–215
Wu CC, Shih CH (1992) Biomechanical analysis of the mechanism of interlocking nail failure. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 111:268–272
Levin PE, Schoen RW Jr, Browner BD (1987) Radiation exposure to the surgeon during closed interlocking intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69:761–766
Miller ME, Davis ML, MacClean CR et al (1983) Radiation exposure and associated risks to operating-room personnel during use of fluoroscopic guidance for selected orthopaedic surgical procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:1–4
Gugala Z, Nana A, Lindsey RW (2001) Tibial intramedullary nail distal interlocking screw placement: comparison of the free-hand versus distally-based targeting device techniques. Injury 32(suppl 4):SD21–SD25
Krettek C, Könemann B, Miclau T et al (1997) In vitro and in vivo radiomorphometric analyses of distal screw hole position of the solid tibial nail following insertion. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 12:198–200
Krettek C, Mannss J, Könemann B et al (1997) The deformation of small diameter solid tibial nails with unreamed intramedullary insertion. J Biomech 30:391–394
Krettek C, Mannss J, Miclau T et al (1998) Deformation of femoral nails with intramedullary insertion. J Orthop Res 16:572–575
Sanders R, Koval KJ, DiPasquale T et al (1993) Exposure of the orthopaedic surgeon to radiation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:326–330
Tsalafoutas IA, Tsapaki V, Kaliakmanis A et al (2008) Estimation of radiation doses to patients and surgeons from various fluoroscopically guided orthopaedic surgeries. RadiatProtDosimetry. 128(1):112–119 (epub 2007 Jun 11)
Kirousis G, Delis H, Megas P et al (2009) Dosimetry during intramedullary nailing of the tibia. Patient and occupational exposure. Acta Orthop 80(5):568–572
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dursun, M., Kalkan, T., Aytekin, M.N. et al. Does the magnetic-guided intramedullary nailing technique shorten operation time and radiation exposure?. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24, 1005–1011 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1269-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1269-z