Abstract：Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of minimally invasive tube channel technique and traditional open technique in the treatment of femoral shaft nonunion. Methods Between March 2016 and June 2018, a total of 29 patients with femoral shaft nonunion were included into this study. Thirteen of these patients underwent minimally invasive surgery via the tube channel (tube channel group), while another 16 patients received traditional open surgery (open group). The healing of femoral shaft nonunion was evaluated based on the Tohner-Wrnch criteria and the postoperative function was evaluated according to SF-36 scores. Results There was no significant difference in age, gender, bone nonunion types, duration of bone nonunion or length of follow-up between the two groups. The incisions in the tube channel group [(6.38±1.45) cm] were significantly smaller than those in the open group [(20.56±7.69) cm, P=0.003]. The duration of surgery [ (116.15±23.29)min vs. (250.75±53.82)min] and intra-operative blood loss [(105.00±15.00)ml vs. (565.63±239.94)ml ]were significantly shorter or less in the tube channel group (P＜0.05). The femoral shaft nonunion was healed and the excellent and good rate of clinical outcomes was 100% in both groups during the last follow-up. There was no significant difference in SF-36 physical function scores or bodily pain scores between the two groups. Conclusions The minimally invasive tube channel technique has the advantages of easy operation, shorter duration of surgery, decreased blood loss, and reduced iatrogenic damage, which is an ideal treatment.
Denisiuk M, Afsari A. Femoral shaft fractures [M]. Treasure Island (FL): Stat Pearls, 2021.
[2]
Metsemakers W J, Roels N, Belmans A, et al. Risk factors for nonunion after intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures: remaining controversies[J]. Injury, 2015, 46(8):1601-1607.
[3]
Garnavos C. Treatment of aseptic non-union after intramedullary nailing without removal of the nail[J]. Injury, 2017, 48(Suppl 1): S76-S81.
[4]
Eom T W, Kim J J, Oh H K, et al. Challenge to treat hypertrophic nonunion of the femoral shaft: the poller screw augmentation technique [J]. Eur J Surg Traumatol, 2016, 26(6): 559-563.
[5]
Peng Y, Ji X, Zhang L, et al. Double locking plate fixation for femoral shaft nonunion[J]. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2016, 26(5):501-507.
Jhunjhunwala H R, Dhawale A A. Is augmentation plating an effective treatment for non-union of femoral shaft fractures with nail in situ? [J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2016, 42(3):339-343.
[9]
Maimaitiyiming A, Amat A, Rehei A, et al. Treatment of the femoral shaft nonunion with double plate fixation and bone grafting: a case series of 14 patients[J]. Injury, 2015, 46(6):1102-1107.
[10]
Said G Z, Said H G, Sharkawi M M. Failed intramedullary nailing of femur: open reduction and plate augmentation with the nail in situ [J]. Int Orthop, 2011, 35(7): 1089-1092.
[11]
Bell A, Templeman D, Weinlein J C. Nonunion of the femur and tibia: an update [J]. Orthop Clin N Am, 2016, 47(2): 365-375.
[12]
Rupp M, Biehl C, Budak M, et al. Diaphyseal long bone nonunions-types, aetiology, economics, and treatment recommendations[J]. Int Orthop, 2018, 42(2): 247-258.
[13]
Wu K J, Li S H, Yeh K T, et al. The risk factors of nonunion after intramedullary nailing fixation of femur shaft fracture in middle age patients [J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(29):e16559.
[14]
Uliana C S, Bidolegui F, Kojima K, et al. Augmentation plating leaving the nail in situ is an excellent option for treating femoral shaft nonunion after IM nailing: a multicentre study [J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1007/500068-020-01333-0.
[15]
Zhang W, Hao M, Chang Z, et al. Comparison of a multidimensional cross locking plate versus a locking compression plate for the treatment of femoral shaft nonunion: finite element analysis [J]. Med Eng Phys, 2020, 83:106-111.
[16]
Kanakeshwara R B, Jayaramarajua D, Agraharam D, et al. Management of resistant distal femur non-unions with allograft strut and autografts combined with osteosynthesis in a series of 22patients [J]. Injury, 2017, 48(Suppl 2): S14-S17.
Alam Q S, Alam M T, Reza M S, et al. Evaluation of outcome of exchange nailing with autogenous bone graft for treating aseptic nonunion of femoral shaft fracture [J]. Mymensingh Med J, 2019, 28(2):378-381.
[20]
Yang K H, Won Y, Kim S B, et al. Plate augmentation and autologous bone grafting after intramedullary nailing for challenging femoral bone defects: a technical note [J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2016, 136(10): 1381-1385.
Chiang J C, Johnson J E, Tarkin I S, et al. Plate augmentation for femoral nonunion: more than just a salvage tool?[J] . Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2016, 136(2):149-156.
[23]
Lai P J, Hsu Y H, Chou Y C, et al. Augmentative antirotational plating provided a significantly higher union rate than exchanging reamed nailing in treatment for femoral shaft aseptic atrophic nonunion-retrospective cohort study [J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2019, 20(1):127.
[24]
Ru J, Xu H, Kang W, et al. Augmentative compression plating versus exchanging reamed nailing for nonunion of femoral shaft fracture after intramedullary nailing: a retrospective cohort study [J]. Acta Orthop Belg, 2016, 82(2):249-257.
[25]
Hoppenfeld S, deBoer P, Buckley R. Surgical exposures in orthopaedics:the anatomic approach [M]. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009.
[26]
Park K C, Oh C W, Kim J W, et al. Minimally invasive plate augmentation in the treatment of long-bone non-unions [J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2017, 137:1523-1528.
2021, Vol. 32 
