Comparison of Lateral versus Medial Entry Femoral Traction Pin Complication Rates.

T David Luo, S Hanif Hussaini, Nicholas A Andring, Erin A Kelly, Eben A Carroll, Jason J Halvorson
{"title":"Comparison of Lateral versus Medial Entry Femoral Traction Pin Complication Rates.","authors":"T David Luo, S Hanif Hussaini, Nicholas A Andring, Erin A Kelly, Eben A Carroll, Jason J Halvorson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Distal femoral skeletal traction is a common procedure for the stabilization of fractures of the pelvis, acetabulum, and femur following trauma. Femoral traction pins are traditionally inserted via medial-to-lateral (MTL) entry to accurately direct the pin away from the medial neurovascular bundle. Alternatively, cadaveric studies have demonstrated low risk to the neurovascular bundle using a lateral-to-medial (LTM) approach. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of complications of LTM and MTL femoral traction pin placement at a single institution. This was a retrospective review of patients from the orthopaedic consult registry at a academic Level I Trauma Center. We identified 233 LTM femoral traction pin procedures in 231 patients and 29 MTL pin procedures in 29 patients. The two pin placement techniques were compared with respect to complications, specifically the incidence of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, and heterotopic ossification after femoral traction pin placement. Two complications were reported. One patient developed heterotopic ossification along the pin tract after LTM traction pin placement. Another patient developed septic arthritis after LTM pin placement, likely attributable to retrograde intramedullary nailing of his open femur fracture rather than his traction pin. There were no reports of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, or osteomyelitis associated with pin placement. The complication rate was 0.9% for LTM group and 0.0% for MTL group (p = 0.616). LTM femoral traction pin placement is a safe procedure with a similarly low complication rate compared with traditional MTL placement when the limb is positioned in neutral alignment. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(4):259-262, 2023).</p>","PeriodicalId":516534,"journal":{"name":"Journal of surgical orthopaedic advances","volume":"32 4","pages":"259-262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of surgical orthopaedic advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Distal femoral skeletal traction is a common procedure for the stabilization of fractures of the pelvis, acetabulum, and femur following trauma. Femoral traction pins are traditionally inserted via medial-to-lateral (MTL) entry to accurately direct the pin away from the medial neurovascular bundle. Alternatively, cadaveric studies have demonstrated low risk to the neurovascular bundle using a lateral-to-medial (LTM) approach. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of complications of LTM and MTL femoral traction pin placement at a single institution. This was a retrospective review of patients from the orthopaedic consult registry at a academic Level I Trauma Center. We identified 233 LTM femoral traction pin procedures in 231 patients and 29 MTL pin procedures in 29 patients. The two pin placement techniques were compared with respect to complications, specifically the incidence of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, and heterotopic ossification after femoral traction pin placement. Two complications were reported. One patient developed heterotopic ossification along the pin tract after LTM traction pin placement. Another patient developed septic arthritis after LTM pin placement, likely attributable to retrograde intramedullary nailing of his open femur fracture rather than his traction pin. There were no reports of neurovascular injury, cellulitis, or osteomyelitis associated with pin placement. The complication rate was 0.9% for LTM group and 0.0% for MTL group (p = 0.616). LTM femoral traction pin placement is a safe procedure with a similarly low complication rate compared with traditional MTL placement when the limb is positioned in neutral alignment. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(4):259-262, 2023).

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
股骨牵引针外侧入路与内侧入路并发症发生率的比较
股骨远端骨骼牵引是外伤后稳定骨盆、髋臼和股骨骨折的常用方法。股骨牵引针传统上从内侧向外侧(MTL)插入,以准确地引导牵引针远离内侧神经血管束。另外,尸体研究表明,采用外侧到内侧(LTM)的方法对神经血管束的风险较低。本研究的目的是比较一家医疗机构中 LTM 和 MTL 股骨牵引针置入术的并发症发生率。这是一项对一家一级创伤中心骨科会诊登记患者的回顾性研究。我们在231名患者中发现了233例LTM股骨牵引针置入术,在29名患者中发现了29例MTL股骨牵引针置入术。我们比较了两种钢针置入技术的并发症,特别是股骨牵引钢针置入术后神经血管损伤、蜂窝织炎、化脓性关节炎、骨髓炎和异位骨化的发生率。报告了两种并发症。一名患者在放置LTM牵引针后沿针道出现异位骨化。另一名患者在放置LTM牵引针后出现了化脓性关节炎,这可能是由于其开放性股骨骨折的逆行髓内钉而非牵引针所致。目前还没有关于神经血管损伤、蜂窝组织炎或骨髓炎与置钉相关的报道。LTM 组的并发症发生率为 0.9%,MTL 组为 0.0%(P = 0.616)。LTM股骨牵引针置入术是一种安全的手术,与传统的MTL置入术相比,当肢体处于中立对位时,并发症发生率同样较低。(外科骨科进展杂志》32(4):259-262,2023)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Incidence of Urinary Retention Following Posterior Spinal Fusion for Adolescent and Pediatric Scoliosis at a Single Academic Center: Is There a Role for Prophylactic Tamsulosin? Indirect Coronal Reduction Technique Using a Volar Locking Plate in Distal Radius Fractures: A Case Series. Major Metropolitan Area COVID-19 - Positive Patients Undergoing Emergency and Elective Orthopaedic Surgeries: A Case-matched Control Study. Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Increased Body Mass Associated with Decreased Bracing Outcomes. Fluoroscopy and Radiographs for Detecting Retained Surgical Needles in the Hand.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1