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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. The mechanics of external fixation. HSS J. 2007;3(1):13–29.
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.
Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Lengthening and deformity correction about the knee using a magnetic internal lengthening nail. SICOT J. 2017;3(25):1–10.
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.
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.
Harbacheuski R, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Does lengthening and plating shorten duration of external fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(6):1771–1781.
Horn J, Grimsrud Ø, Dagsgard AH, Huhnstock S, Steen H. Femoral lengthening with a motorized intramedullary nail. Acta Orthop. 2015;86:248–256.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Khakharia S, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Limited quadsplasty for contracture during femoral lengthening. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2009;467(11):2911–2917.
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.
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.
Kirane YM, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Precision of the PRECICE internal bone lengthening nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:3869–3878.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Li R, Saleh M, Yang L, Coulton L. Radiographic classification of osteogenesis during bone distraction. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:339–347.
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.
McCarthy JJ, Ranade A, Davidson RS. Pediatric deformity correction using a multiaxial correction fixator. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(12):3011–3017.
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):199–205
Paley D. PRECICE intramedullary limb lengthening system Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(3):231–249.
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.
Paley D, Harris M, Debiparshad K, Prince D. Limb lengthening by implantable limb lengthening devices. Tech Orthop. 2014;29(2):72–85
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgements
We thank our research coordinator Eugene Borst for his help in managing the clinical data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Anton M. Kurtz, MD, Jonathan R. Barclay, BS, and Joseph Nguyen, MPH, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Austin T. Fragomen, MD, reports receiving personal fees from NuVasive, Smith and Nephew, and Synthes, outside the submitted work. S. Robert Rozbruch, MD, reports receiving personal fees from NuVasive, Smith and Nephew, and Stryker, outside the submitted work.
Human/Animal Rights
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was waived from all patients for being included in this study.
Required Author Forms
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.
Additional information
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Study: Level III
Investigation performed at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fragomen, A.T., Kurtz, A.M., Barclay, J.R. et al. A Comparison of Femoral Lengthening Methods Favors the Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail When Compared with Lengthening Over a Nail. HSS Jrnl 14, 166–176 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-017-9596-y