European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
The course of treatment in nonunions of long bones: can we predict when exchange nailing may fail?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ulrich Gary L, Pease Tyler J, Raffetto Michael L, Gaski Greg E, Hymes Robert A, Calodney Paige E, Matuszewski Paul E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Exchange nailing is often used to treat femoral and tibial nonunions. Its success rate varies with reports of 50-100% success. We sought to determine the trajectory of healing and identify factors associated with the failure of exchange nailing in the treatment of nonunion.
METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review at two level I trauma centers. Patients with aseptic femoral and tibial nonunions treated with exchange nailing were included. The primary outcome was union prior to or at 1 year following treatment. Treatment failure was defined as lack of union (defined as lack of bridging bone on 3 or more cortices) at 1 year or an additional procedure to promote union.
RESULTS: 138 patients with aseptic nonunion of tibia or femur fractures initially treated with intramedullary nailing were identified. 77% of patients went on to successful union within 1 year after exchange nailing. The overall union rate was 9.6% at 6 weeks, 36.2% at 3 months, and 67% at 6 months. In femurs, less than 100% cortical contact, diabetes mellitus, and use of bone graft was associated with failure of exchange nailing. On multivariate analysis, only less than 100% cortical contact was associated with an increased risk of failure. No predictors were identified in the tibia. Rates of union were comparable between nonunion at diaphyseal and non-diaphyseal fracture sites, regardless of morphological type.
CONCLUSION: Exchange nailing is a valuable treatment option and may be considered for aseptic nonunions of long bones. Surgeons should consider avoiding this technique when treating femoral nonunions which have less than 100% cortical contact.
METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review at two level I trauma centers. Patients with aseptic femoral and tibial nonunions treated with exchange nailing were included. The primary outcome was union prior to or at 1 year following treatment. Treatment failure was defined as lack of union (defined as lack of bridging bone on 3 or more cortices) at 1 year or an additional procedure to promote union.
RESULTS: 138 patients with aseptic nonunion of tibia or femur fractures initially treated with intramedullary nailing were identified. 77% of patients went on to successful union within 1 year after exchange nailing. The overall union rate was 9.6% at 6 weeks, 36.2% at 3 months, and 67% at 6 months. In femurs, less than 100% cortical contact, diabetes mellitus, and use of bone graft was associated with failure of exchange nailing. On multivariate analysis, only less than 100% cortical contact was associated with an increased risk of failure. No predictors were identified in the tibia. Rates of union were comparable between nonunion at diaphyseal and non-diaphyseal fracture sites, regardless of morphological type.
CONCLUSION: Exchange nailing is a valuable treatment option and may be considered for aseptic nonunions of long bones. Surgeons should consider avoiding this technique when treating femoral nonunions which have less than 100% cortical contact.