Distal locking of femoral nails: a prospective comparative study of two different fluoroscopy assisted techniques

Saroj Kumar Patra; Bishnu Prasad Patro; Sidharth Samal; Mahesh Chandra Sahu; Biswa Bhusana Mohanty

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20160233

Authors

Saroj Kumar Patra Department of Orthopaedics, IMS and SUM Hospital, Siksha O Anusandhan University, K8, Kalinga Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751003, Odisha, India
Bishnu Prasad Patro Department of Orthopaedics, IMS and SUM Hospital, Siksha O Anusandhan University, K8, Kalinga Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751003, Odisha, India
Sidharth Samal Department of Orthopaedics, IMS and SUM Hospital, Siksha O Anusandhan University, K8, Kalinga Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751003, Odisha, India
Mahesh Chandra Sahu Central Research Laboratory, IMS and SUM Hospital, Siksha O Anusandhan University, K8, Kalinga Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751003, Odisha, India
Biswa Bhusana Mohanty Department of Anatomy, IMS and SUM Hospital, Siksha O Anusandhan University, K8, Kalinga Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751003, Odisha, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20160233

Keywords:

Femur, Interlocking, Distal locking, Radiation hazards

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the radiation exposure and time required for distal femoral locking by two different fluoroscopy dependent free hand techniques.

Methods: Two different free hands fluoroscopic assisted distal locking of femur was adopted. First one, traditional method of locking femur in which free hand drilling of femur done with lateral view of femur. Second one is one where femur was drilled with anterior-posterior view of femur in image intensifier. In each method 150 femurs was operated. All the surgeries are performed by same surgeons. Total time duration for distal locking and radiation exposures in terms of fluoroscopy shots in each procedure was compared.

Results: The time duration of distal locking with this novel method (second) was only 4 mins (average) and number of fluoroscopy shots are 8 (average) which is significantly less than routine freehand technique (first) i.e. 14 min (average) and 18 (average) fluoroscopy shots.

Conclusions: Our novel method is significantly less time consuming and minimal radiation exposure compared to traditional free hand technique.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Brumback RJ. The rationales of interlocking nailing of the femur, tibia, andhumerus. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 1996;324:292-320.

Kempf I, Leung KS, Grosse A. Practice of Intramedullary Locked Nails: Scientiﬁc Basis and Standard Techniques. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, Verlag. 2002.

Kuntscher G. Practice of Intramedullary Nailing. Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C Thomas Publishers. 1967.

Kelley SS, Bonar S, Hussamy OD. A simple technique for insertion of distal screws into interlocking nails. J Orthop Trauma. 1995;9:227-30.

MacMillan M, Gross RH. A simpliﬁed technique of distal femoral screwinsertion for the Grosse-Kempf interlocking nail. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 1988;226:252-9.

Hudson I. Locking nailing: an aid to distal targetting. Injury. 1989;20:129-30.

Rao JP, Allegra MP, Benevenia J. Distal screw targeting ofinterlocking nails. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 1989;238:245-8.

Riley SA. Radiation exposure from ﬂuoroscopy during orthopaedic surgical procedures.ClinOrthopRelat Res. 1989;248:257-60.

Sanders R, Koval KJ, DiPasquale T. Exposure of the orthopaedic surgeon to radiation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:326-30.

Skjeldal S, Backe S. Interlocking medullary nails-radiation doses indistal targeting. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1987;106:179-81.

Sanders R, Koval KJ, Dipasquale T, Schmelling G, Stenzler S, Ross E. Exposure of the orthopaedic surgeon to radiation.

Bick EM. The intramedullary nailing of fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 1968;60:5-12.

Brumback RJ, Toal TR, Murphy-Zane MS, Novak VP, Belkoff SM. Immediate weight-bearing after treatment of a comminuted fracture of the femoral shaft with a statically locked intramedullary nail. Journalof Bone & Joint Surgery. 1999;81:1538-44.

Schatzker J. Fractures of the distal femur revis- ited. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 1998;347:43-56.