Key result
Elastic stable intramedullary nailing had a 24% complication rate versus 42% for external fixation in children with diaphyseal femoral fractures, with no significant difference between methods.
Why the study?
Intramedullary fixation with elastic stable intramedullary nailing and external fixator stabilization are both standard methods for managing diaphyseal femoral shaft fractures in children, prompting a direct comparison.
Does elastic stable intramedullary nailing reduce complications compared to external fixation in children with diaphyseal femoral fractures?
Population
57 patients aged 2 to 16 years with isolated traumatic diaphyseal femur fractures
Comparison
Elastic stable intramedullary nailing vs external fixation
Design
Retrospective bi-centre cohort study
Follow-up
Mean 6.1 ± 4.6 months
Authors
Loading...
Comparable complication rates support either method without practice change; leaves open superiority of nailing in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=57)
Yes
Does elastic stable intramedullary nailing reduce complications compared to external fixation in children with diaphyseal femoral fractures?
Absolute Event Rate: 24% vs 42%
Both elastic stable intramedullary nailing and external fixation are effective for pediatric diaphyseal femur fractures, with a trend toward fewer complications in the nailing group but no statistically significant difference overall.
Thomas et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in diaphyseal femoral shaft fractures (n=57). Elastic stable intramedullary nailing vs. External fixation was evaluated on osteosynthesis-related complications. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing had a 24% complication rate versus 42% for external fixation in children with diaphyseal femoral fractures, with no significant difference between methods.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: