Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reamed intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal tibial fractures: comparison of compression and non-compression nailing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Modern intramedullary implants provide the option to perform compression at the fracture gap in long bone fractures via a compression screw mechanism. The aim of this study was to assess if the application of interfragmentary compression in the intramedullary nailing of tibia fractures could increase the union rate and speed of fracture healing.

Methods

Sixty-three patients who suffered from an AO-type 42-A3 or 42-B2 fracture that was treated by reamed intramedullary nailing between 2003 and 2008 were included in this retrospective study. Twenty-five patients were treated with dynamic interlocking without compression while 38 were treated with compression nailing. The compression load of the dynamic proximal screw was calculated by postoperative X-ray and radiographs taken four weeks after operation. Healing was assessed by radiological evaluation until the completion of bony healing or the disappearance of clinical symptoms. Nonunion was defined as the absence of radiological union and the persistence of clinical symptoms after six months.

Results

Postoperative compression was applied at a mean load of 1,852 N, and 980 N remained after four weeks. In the compression group, 19 open and 19 closed fractures occurred. In the non-compression group, 25 patients were included (14 closed and 11 open cases). Active compression decreased healing time significantly. Nonunion occurred in one compression patient and three non-compression patients.

Conclusion

The results show that additional compression of the fracture gap can improve healing outcome in simple transverse tibial shaft fractures treated with reamed nailing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Claes LE, Heigele CA. Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech. 1999;32:255–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Claes LE, Heigele CA, Neidlinger-Wilke C, Kaspar D, Seidl W, Margevicius KJ, Augat P. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Releat Res. 1998;355:S132–47.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Augat P, Simon U, Liedert A, Claes L. Mechanics and mechano-biology of fracture healing in normal and osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(Suppl 2):36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhandari M, Tornetta P, Sprague S, Najibi S, Petrisor B, Griffith L, Guyatt GH. Predictors of reoperation following operative management of fractures of the tibial shaft. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17:353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gaebler C, Berger U, Schandelmaier P, Greitbauer M, Schauwecker HH, Applegate B, Zych G, Vecsei V. Rates and odd ratios for complications in closed and open tibial fractures treated with unreamed small diameter nails: a multicenter analysis of 467 cases. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:415–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schandelmaier P, Kretteck C, Tscherne H. Biomechanical study of nine different tibia locking nails. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10:37–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Augat P, Burger J, Schorlemmer S, Henke T, Peraus M, Claes L. Shear movement at the fracture site delays healing in a diaphyseal fracture model. J Orthop Res. 2003;21:1011–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Augat P, Penzkofer R, Nolte A, Maier M, Panzer S, v Oldenburg G, Püschel K, Simon U, Bühren V. Interfragmentary movement in diaphyseal tibia fractures fixed with locked intramedullary nails. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:30–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Penzkofer R, Maier M, Nolte A, vOldenburg G, Püschel K, Bühren V, Augat P. Influence of intramedullary nail diameter and locking mode on the stability of tibial shaft fracture fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:525–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gonschorek O, Hofmann GO, Bühren V. Interlocking compression nailing: a report on 402 applications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998;117:430–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lacroix D, Prendergast PJ. Three-dimensional simulation of fracture repair in the human tibia. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2002;5(5):369–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gardner MJ, van der Meulen MC, Demetrakopoulos D, Wright TM, Myers ER, Bostrom MP. In vivo cyclic axial compression affects bone healing in the mouse tibia. J Orthop Res. 2006;24(8):1679–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wähnert D, Mückley T, Gerber C, v Oldenburg G, Steinhauser E, Bühren V. Compression force analysis for an intramedullary nailing system in humerus, tibia and femur. Biomaterialien. 2007;8(4):299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Perren SM. Physical and biological effects of fracture healing with special reference to internal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;138:175–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta A. Dynamic compression nail: a preliminary report. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2001;2:6.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kevin Burfeind (a native English speaker from America) for his translational work. The compression force was calculated by Stryker Osteosynthesis. There was no financial sponsorship of this work from industry.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Biomechanics, Murnau, Germany

    F. Högel & P. Augat

  2. BG Traumacenter Murnau e.V., Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Murnau, Prof. Küntscher Str.8, 82418, Murnau, Germany

    F. Högel & V. Bühren

  3. Stryker Osteosynthesis, Prof. Küntscher Str. 1-5, 24232, Schönkirchen/Kiel, Germany

    C. Gerber

  4. Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria

    P. Augat

  5. Institute for Biomechanics, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Murnau and PMU Salzburg, James Loeb Str. 7, 82418, Murnau, Germany

    P. Augat

Authors
  1. F. Högel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Bühren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Augat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Högel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Högel, F., Gerber, C., Bühren, V. et al. Reamed intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal tibial fractures: comparison of compression and non-compression nailing. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 39, 73–77 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-012-0237-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-012-0237-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation