Limb Lengthening: Hydraulically Driven

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

An intramedullary nail with two telescoping parts, which can gradually distract two bone segments was developed. The implant is driven by a hydraulic mechanism connected to the tip of the nail via an insert tube, which ends outside the body. The mechanism of lengthening or transport is easy to understand and simple to use. Lengthening up to 8 cm and transport up to 5.5 cm can be achieved with this method. The pressure medium used to push the distal part of the telescope nail down the intramedullary is arachis oil because of its better rheology properties and the excellent resistance against bacterial growth. Eighty-five patients were treated with the hydraulic nail, 48 tibiae and 37 femora. In all except two cases, the indication was a post-traumatic bone healing problem. Daily distraction was applied. In all except one case, bone healing was obtained. Major complications such as implant failure or rupture of the inlet tube have been addressed by change of the used materials. The advantage of the described method is reduced distraction time, avoidance of a long standing external fixation system, its simplicity of use and its reduced cost.

Keywords

Limb Lengthening Femur Tibia External fixator Ilizarov Internal fixator Hydraulic Complications 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effects on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;238:249–81.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ilizarov GA. Clinical application of tension stress effects for limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1990;250:8–26.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wagner H. Operative lengthening of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;136:125–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siffert R. Current concept review. Lower limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1100–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Götz J, Schellmann WD. Continuous lengthening of the femur with intramedullary stabilisation. Arch Orthop Unfallchir. 1975;82:​305–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matano T, Tamai K, Kurokawa T. Adaptation of skeletal muscle in limb lengthening: a light diffraction study on the sarcomere length in situ. J Orthop Res. 1994;12:193–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fink B, Krieger M, Strauss JM, Opheys C, Menkhaus S, Fischer J, Rüther W. Osteogenesis and its influencing factors during treatment with the Ilizarov method. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1996;323:261–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Green SA. Skeletal defects. A comparison of bone grafting and bone transport for segmental skeletal defects. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1994;301:111–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herbert AJ, Herzenberg JE, Paley D. Review for pediatricians on limb lengthening and the Ilizarov method. Curr Opin Pediatr. 1995;71:98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiedemann M. Morphologische Grundlagen der Kallusdistraktion. Zentralbl Chir. 1994;119:587–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Motmans R, Lammens J. Knee range of motion in femoral lengthening by Ilizarov. 2002. Thesis, Catholic University of Leuven.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guichet JM, Casar RS. Mechanical characterization of a totally intramedullary gradual elongation nail. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1997;337:281–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guichet JM, Grammont PM, Trouilloud P. A nail for progressive lengthening. An animal experiment with a 2-year follow-up. Chirurgie. 1992;118:405–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guichet JM. Clou centro-médullaire d’allongement progressif femoral (Allizzia): résultats des 52 premiers cas (48 patients). Rev Chir Orthop et Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1995;81:170–95.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guichet JM, Deromedis B, Donnan LT, Peretti G, Lascombes P, Bado F. Gradual femoral lengthening with the Albizzia intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:838–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh S, Lahiri A, Iqbal M. The results of limb lengthening by callus distraction using an extending extramedullary nail (Fitbone®) in non-traumatic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88-B:938–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burghardt RD, Herzenberg JE, Specht SC, Paley D. Mechanical failure of intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor in limb lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93-B:639–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baumgart R, Betz A. A fully implantable motorized intramedullary nail for limb lengthening and bone transport. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1997;343:135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Curto de la Mano A, Garcia-Rey E, Cordero J, Marti-Ciruelos R. The intramedullary elongation nail for femoral lengthening. J Bone Surg Br. 2002;84-B:971–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young VL, et al. Biocompatibility of radiolucent breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;88:462–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kenawey M, Krettek C, Liodakis E, Wiebking U, Hankemeier S. Leg lengthening using intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor: results of 57 consecutive applications. Injury. 2011;42:150–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giannoudis PV, Faour O, Goff T, Kanakaris N, Dimitriou R. Masquelet technique for the treatment of bone defects: tips-tricks and future directions. Injury. 2011;42:591–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsUniversity Hospitals BrugmannBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Physical MedicineUniversity Hospitals BrugmannBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations