Search

Aim and Objective: Tibial lengthening can be performed by distraction osteogenesis via lengthening and then nailing (LATN) or by using a magnetic lengthening nail (MLN). MLN avoids the complications of external fixation while providing accurate and easily controlled lengthening. Concerns exist still regarding the high upfront cost of the magnetic nail, which serves to limit its use in resource-poor areas and decrease adoption among cost-conscious surgeons. The purpose of this study was to compare the hospital, surgeon, and total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening., Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed comparing consecutive tibial lengthening using either LATN (n = 17) or MLN (n = 15). The number of surgical procedures and time to union were compared. Surgeon and hospital payments were used to perform cost analysis after adjusting for inflation using the consumer price index (CPI)., Results: Patients treated with MLN underwent fewer surgeries (3.6 vs 2.8; p < 0.001) but had a longer time to union as compared with patients treated with LATN (19.79 vs 27.84 weeks; p = 0.006). Total costs were similar ($50,345 vs $46,162; p = 0.249) although surgeon fees were lower for MLN as compared with LATN ($6,426 vs $4,428; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: LATN and MLN had similar overall costs in patients undergoing tibial lengthening. MLN was associated with fewer procedures but a longer time to union as compared with LATN., Clinical Significance: Despite an increased upfront cost in MLN, there was no difference in total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening. Thus, in cases where either method is feasible, cost may not be a deciding factor when selecting the appropriate treatment., How to Cite This Article: Dvorzhinskiy A, Zhang DT, Fragomen AT, et al. Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(1):14-19., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None, (Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.)

Introduction: Historically, blocking screws have been used to assist in acute reduction of fractures during intramedullary (IM) nailing. The reverse-rule-of-thumbs (RROT) for blocking screws was introduced to facilitate internal lengthening nail use in deformity correction and limb lengthening. Our study investigated the ability of blocking screws, using same principle, to accurately correct long-bone deformity with and without lengthening and to prevent lengthening-induced deformity., Materials and Methods: This is an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective study on 86 patients who had IM nail-assisted limb reconstruction of femur or tibia with blocking screws. Surgeries were performed for deformity correction, limb lengthening, or deformity correction and limb lengthening. Data on the following variables were collected: number of blocking screws, distance of each blocking screw to osteotomy, distance of osteotomy from joint line, and amount of lengthening. Mechanical axis deviation (MAD) and joint alignment parameters were measured preoperatively and at the final postoperative follow-up. The primary outcome was the ability to obtain desired MAD and joint orientation angles. Accuracies were reported as postoperative measurements relative to goal. Association for the Study and Applications of the Methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) scores were collected., Results: The accuracy of deformity correction was within 6 mm from goal, while joint orientation was corrected to within 1.5° of goal. Number of blocking screws did not significantly impact accuracy. Distance of blocking screw to osteotomy and amount of lengthening did not affect accuracy. In femurs, osteotomies greater than 10 cm from the joint line were more accurate in MAD goal ( p = 0.017). This result was not replicated in tibias. ASAMI scores were excellent or good., Conclusion: Using RROT configuration, blocking screws were effective in correcting deformities of lower extremity long bones and in preventing deformity during limb lengthening. If positioned correctly, number of screws and their distance to osteotomy did not affect accuracy. Amount of lengthening did not impact accuracy. Distal femoral osteotomy less than 10 cm from knee joint may be challenging even with using blocking screws., How to Cite This Article: Dabash S, Zhang DT, Rozbruch SR, et al. Blocking Screw-assisted Intramedullary Nailing Using the Reverse-rule-of-thumbs for Limb Lengthening and Deformity Correction. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2019;14(2):77-84., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None, (Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.)