Radiographic, Bone Densitometry and Clinic Outcomes Assessments in Femoral Shaft Fractures Fixed by Plating or Locking Retrograde Nail

Abstract

Introduction: Distal femoral shaft fractures are characterized by increasing incidence and complexity and are still considered a challenging problem (high morbidity and mortality). No consensus on best surgical option has been achieved. Aim: This study aims is to investigate radiographic, mineral bone densitometry and clinical outcomes of locking retrograde intramedullary (LRN) nailing and anatomical locking plate to surgically treat distal femoral shaft fractures in young adults based on the hypothesis that there is no statistical difference among the two surgical options in terms of results (radiographic, bone densitometry and outcomes assessment). Methods: Retrospective study: 30 patients divided into 2 groups (Group 1 LRN, Group 2 Nailing). Average age was 42.67±18.32 for Group 1 and 42.84 ±18.32 for Group 2 (range of age 18-65 for both groups). Gender Ratio (male: female) was 2.75 (11:4) for both Group 1 and 2. AO Classification, NUSS and RUSH score, VAS, Dexa scans, plain radiographs were used. Evaluation endpoint: 12 months after surgery (mean follow up 16.24). Results: No statistical difference in terms of surgery time, transfusions, wound healing. Similar results with regard to average time of bone healing, RUSH scores, VAS, regression between RUSH and VAS, average correlation clinical-radiographic results and patients outcomes. Only one patient of each group had reduction of mineral bone densitometry values. Conclusion: No statistical difference about the use of LNR or Nailing for treatment of distal femur shaft fractures in terms of radiographic, bone densitometry and outcomes has been found accordingly to our results. Good subjective and objective results are provided by both techniques. The choice among the two techniques must be based on surgeons’ experience, indications and subjective patients’ aspects. The absence of relevant similar data in the published literature does not allow definitive validation (or rejection) of our hypothesis. A more powered study with bigger cohort is needed for definitive validation.