Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Nailing compound fractures when / safety evidence

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Nailing compound fractures when / safety evidence"— Presentation transcript:

1 Nailing compound fractures when / safety evidence

2 American Civil War Mortality 26% France – Russian war 13000 Amputee
HISTORY of open fractures American Civil War Mortality 26% France – Russian war Amputee

3 Nailing in open fractures
Improved technique debridement. Use of AB bead pouch and Rod Vaccume assisted closure Newer designs of nails & plates. Perioper. AB

4 Corner stone of Open fracture-Debridement
Wound - Extend longitudinally- Exploration Fasciotomy Debridement Irrigation AB Beads 6. VAC – not a substitute

5 Adv. nailing in open # Early stabilization of open fracture controls
pain,swelling, mobility inflammation 2. Mobility-Further soft tissue damage 3. Early mobilization of jt & pt. 4 CPM

6 IMN Adv. Biomechanically superior, maintain L, alignment and rotation
Early wt. bearing Less rate of secondary surgery

7 Adv. of immediate IF Unkinks A,V and lymphatics , improves circulation at fracture zone

8 Ext. Fix –meta-analysis
Adv : union - 94 % infection - 16% chro. Osteo - 4% -Giamondis JBJS, Br. 2006

9 Complication of Ext. Fix
Pin loosening Pin tract inf. 32 % Mal-union Exchange nailing- inf to 30% “Non-union machine “

10 IMN IMN is a safe, effective method for open fracture I, II, III A & B S.Malvin JAAOS, Feb 2010

11 Reamed V/s Unreamed Reaminng-- Adv 1. larger diameter – better
fracture stability 2. Implant failure less 3. Reaming deposit B.G. 4. Periosteal blood supply ++

12 Reaming . Metaanalysis failed to show an increased risk of re-operation No increased rate of infection or nonunion - Bhandari Et al JBJS B 2001 :

13 Multicentric level 1 study
open fractures 460 Reamed 210 Unreamed 196 Does not support superiority of either. SPRINT Group JBJS Am 2008 Debate is ongoing

14 Reamed Disadv - 1. Reduced intramedullary blood supply, but Periosteal blood supply ++ 2. Thermal necrosis a) use sharp reamers, increment by 0.5 mm b) gentle reaming –back & forth

15 Poor result of IMN Inadequate debridement
Inappropriate soft tissue closure Thermal necrosis Severe contamination + late arrival These are contra-indications

16 Literature 143 cases of open tibial shaft fractures.Primary IMN has Favourable results. Deep infection – 3 % - Koker & Tornetta JOT 2007

17 Exchange ex fix to IMN Safety period 10 days till soft tissue recovery
< 14 days ( Varies from 7 to 28 days) Shorter period reduces infection rate - JS Melion et al JOT Feb 2010

18 Do not do primary IMN Severe contamination Inadequate debridement
Delayed arrival AB Rod + Ex. Fix 7-10 days IMN

19 Debride A-B Rod AO Ex Fix 1st VAC DAY 1 JAGRUTI M


21 After 3 changes of VAC, 2nd Skin graft
JAGRUTI M DAY 9 After 3 changes of VAC, 2nd Skin graft

22 After 1 yr JAGRUTI M

With VAC it is possible to nail or plate IIIB open # as VAC is an excellent interval coverage

24 Almost no role of plaster splint or plaster cast with window in open fracture.

25 External Fixator in Open #s
Advantages 1. Pins away from fracture zone 2. No additional open surgery 3. Access to wound dressing and plastic surgery 4. Early mobilisation

26 External Fixator Disadvantages : Pin tract infection
Risk of infection of later ORIF Soft – tissue impaling stiff jt. Pin loosening Ex fix as a definative treat not favoured



29 1 Nailed on day 1 of injury

30 Amar Sawant 15 days old Amar Sawant

31 AMAR SAWANT Amar Sawant

32 AMAR SAWANT Amar Sawant

33 Amar Sawant

34 Chavan chandrakant

35 Chavan chandrakant

36 Kolekar Parmeshwar Kolekar Parmeshwar

37 Open fracture+ pilon IMN on day 1 Hebbal Hasan

38 Both united Hebbal Hasan

39 CONCLUSION Corner stone of fracture debridement
IMN is a safe, effective method Two stage nailing –I) AB rod II) ILIMN a) severe contamination b) delayed arrival


Download ppt "Nailing compound fractures when / safety evidence"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google