Antibiotic cement-coated rigid locked nails in infected femoral and tibial nonunion. Reoperation rates of commercial versus custom-made nails.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to assess bone union, infection control, and reoperation rates in a series of patients with infected femoral or tibial nonunion treated with antibiotic-cement-coated rigid nails and to compare the results obtained with custom-made nails versus commercial nails. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a series of consecutive patients with infected nonunion of the femur or the tibia treated with antibiotic-cement-coated rigid nails between January 2010 and 2020. We assessed patients' distinctive characteristics, initial injury, type of nail used (custom-made nail with vancomycin or commercial nail with gentamicin), success rate (bone union + infection control), reoperation rate, and failure rate. Comparative analyses were conducted between reoperated and non-reoperated patients regarding the type of nail used. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess the risk variables that impacted reoperation rates. RESULTS: We included 54 patients with 22 (40.74%) infected femoral nonunions and 32 (59.25%) tibial nonunions, who were treated with 38 (70.37%) custom-made antibiotic-cement coated nails and 16 (29.62%) commercial nails. Bone union and infection control were achieved in 51 (94.44%) cases. The reoperation rate was 40.74% (n = 22), and the failure rate was 5.55% (n = 3). The use of custom-made nails was associated with a higher risk of reoperation (Odds Ratio 4.71; 95% Confidence Interval 1.10 - 20.17; p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic-cement-coated nails reached a 94.44% success rate. Nails manufactured in the OR coated with vancomycin cement were associated with a higher risk of reoperation than commercial nails loaded with gentamicin cement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III comparative, observational, non-randomized.

Peri-implant femoral fractures: Challenges, outcomes, and proposal of a treatment algorithm.

PURPOSE: Non-prosthetic peri-implant fractures are challenging injuries. Multiple factors must be carefully evaluated for an adequate therapeutic strategy, such as the state of bone healing, the type of implant, the time and performed personnel of previous surgery, and the stability of fixation. The aim of this study is to propose a rationale for the treatment. METHODS: The peri-implant femoral fractures (PIFFs) system, a therapeutic algorithm was developed for the management of all patients presenting a subtype A PIFF, based on the type of the original implant (extra- vs. intra-medullary), implant length and fracture location. The adequacy and reliability of the proposed algorithm and the fracture healing process were assessed at the last clinical follow-up using the Parker mobility score and radiological assessment, respectively. In addition, all complications were noticed. Continuous variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation, or median and range according to their distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency and percentages. RESULTS: This is a retrospective case series of 33 PIFFs, and the mean post-operative Parker mobility score was (5.60 ± 2.54) points. Five patients (15.1%) achieved complete mobility without aids (9 points) and 1 (3.0%) patient was not able to walk. Two other patients (6.1%) were non-ambulatory prior to PPIF. The mean follow-up was (21.51 ± 9.12) months (range 6 - 48 months). There were 7 (21.2%) complications equally distributed between patients managed either with nailing or plating. There were no cases of nonunion or mechanical failure of the original implant. CONCLUSION: The proposed treatment algorithm shows adequate, reliable and straightforward to assist the orthopaedic trauma surgeon on the difficult decision-making process regarding the management of PIFF occurring in previously healed fractures. In addition, it may become a useful tool to optimize the use of the classification, thus potentially improving the outcomes and minimizing complications.