Secondary intramedullary nailing for open tibial shaft fractures. Comparison of a one-stage versus two-stage surgical procedure.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the rates of radiological and clinical complications after sequential treatment of a tibial shaft fracture by external fixation followed by secondary nailing with an early-stage conversion (C1S) versus a two-stage late conversion (C2S). The hypothesis of this work was that treatment with C1S does not increase the risk of surgical site infections compared to C2S, and allows faster healing with a lower malunion rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective and comparative study based on the files of the traumatology department of the Édouard Herriot University Hospital in Lyon. We reviewed the records of patients who presented with a Gustilo grade 1, 2 or 3a open tibial fracture treated with external fixation with conversion by intramedullary nailing within 6 months from January 2010 to December 2020. We assessed the occurrence of Surgical Site Infections (SSI), consolidation time, time until resumption of weight bearing and the malunion rate. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients included, a C1S procedure was performed in 25 cases (45.5%) versus 30 cases (54.5%) for C2S. No significant difference was found concerning the occurrence of SSI after intramedullary nailing between the two groups (p=0.81). A significant difference was observed in terms of bone healing (p=0.036) and the malunion rate (0.0013) in favor of nailing in one stage. DISCUSSION: The strategy of converting an open leg fracture early, in one stage (C1S), after initial external fixator placement allows for faster healing and weight bearing, while ensuring a lower malunion rate compared to that of a late two-stage conversion. In the absence of a scar at the time of intramedullary nailing, C1S does not increase the risk of surgical site infections. While the choice of a late and sequential two-stage operation is likely related to the surgeon's apprehension around conversion of an open leg fracture by intramedullary nailing, this study could promote the use of C1S in a greater number of situations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Does the Surgical Approach Influence the Canal Fill of the Proximal Femur for Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Choosing the right size of the stem is crucial for uncemented hip arthroplasty. Undersizing can lead to early loosening, peri-prosthetic fracture due to femoral implant insertion, and/or osteointegration failure. The main objective of this study was to find a correlation between the surgical approach and the intramedullary prosthetic canal fill ratio (CFR) of the uncemented femoral implant. The hypothesis of this work was that the surgical approach does not influence the stem sizing during hip arthroplasty. METHODS: In this consecutive series, we analyzed the radiological images of 183 patients who underwent primary hip arthroplasty with 4 different surgical approaches. Dimensions of the implant were evaluated by radiographic measurement of the CFR. In order to assess the shape of the femur, we measured the canal flare index on the preoperative radiographs, and the canal calcar ratio was also measured to establish the shape of the femur according to Dorr's classification. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the surgical approach and the CFR measured at 4 different levels (CFR 1, 2, 3, and 4) on the postoperative radiograph. When the shape of the femur was assessed by canal flare index, there was no significant difference in implant, whether the femur had a stovepipe canal shape or a champagne-fluted canal shape. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the surgical approach in hip arthroplasty does not influence the canal fill. Therefore, the surgical approach does not factor in undersizing the femoral implant. Despite some difficulties in the exposure of the medullary shaft described by some authors, the anterior approach is not a risk factor for undersizing an anatomical femoral stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.