Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  19 (2024)
Volume  18 (2023)
Volume  17 (2022)
Volume  16 (2021)
Volume  15 (2020)
Volume  14 (2019)
Volume  13 (2018)
Volume  12 (2017)
Volume  11 (2016)
Volume  10 (2015)
Volume  9 (2014)
Volume  8 (2013)
Volume  7 (2012)
Volume  6 (2011)
Volume  5 (2010)
Volume  4 (2009)
Volume  3 (2008)
Volume  2 (2007)
Volume  1 (2006)
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Precice Stryde® Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail does not Impair Bone Healing Despite Radiographic and Clinical Symptoms

Adam Geffner, Jason S Hoellwarth

Keywords : Distraction osteogenesis, Limb lengthening, Limb reconstruction, Precice nail

Citation Information : Geffner A, Hoellwarth JS. Precice Stryde® Magnetic Internal Lengthening Nail does not Impair Bone Healing Despite Radiographic and Clinical Symptoms. 2023; 18 (2):94-99.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1514

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Published Online: 26-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims: The Precice Stryde® internal magnetic lengthening nail allowed many patients a full weight-bearing experience during femur and tibia lengthening, but concerns over corrosion, pain and radiographic changes led to the implant's recall. Despite the recall, it is important to understand the rate of these occurrences and their influence on the overall success of the lengthening procedure. We aimed to investigate radiographic changes, patient-reported symptoms and bone healing indices for our cohort of Stryde lengthening. Materials and methods: Our surgical database and electronic medical record system were used to review and document patient demographics, indications for lengthening, length achieved, bone healing index (BHI), location and type of radiographic changes, time until radiographic changes were first visible, presence of pain symptoms (not attributable to surgery or distraction), time to implant removal and if the pain symptoms resolved following implant extraction. Results: From January 2019 to February 2021, 90 Stryde nails (78 femur and 12 tibia) were implanted in 63 patients. The cohort included 48 males and 15 females. The average length [± standard deviation (SD)] achieved was 58.4 ± 22.7 mm. The 66 bones (73%) developed radiographic changes and were found to be 58/78 (74%) femurs and 8/12 (67%) tibias. The average time to initial radiographic changes was 168 ± 108.1 days (femur) and 276 ± 126.8 days (tibia). Late-onset pain developed in 10 femur lengthening (11.1% of all nails) surgeries across eight patients (12.7% of all patients). All patients’ pain resolved; three instances prior to nail removal and the remaining seven after nail removal. No patients were re-presented with worsening pain or radiographic changes following implant removal. Radiographic or symptomatic abnormalities did not impair bone formation. The BHI for femurs with (29.6 ± 16.6 days/cm, n = 58) vs without (29.4 ± 17.9 days/cm, n = 20) radiographic or symptomatic irregularity were nearly identical (p = 0.961). The difference between BHI for tibias with (39.3 ± 7.8 days/cm, n = 8) vs without (86.1 ± 38.2 days/cm, n = 4) radiographic changes was influenced by outliers and underpowered to draw a conclusion. Conclusion: Bone lengthening with the Stryde nail was associated with high rates of radiographic abnormalities, but symptoms were uncommon and resolved with explantation. The radiographic changes did not affect bone healing in the femur. Clinical significance: • Radiographic changes including bone hypertrophy and osteolysis were common after bone lengthening with the Stryde nail, but the development of pain following consolidation was rare and resolved with implant removal. • The BHI in femurs was not affected by radiographic changes.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Hosny GA. Limb lengthening history, evolution, complications and current concepts. J Orthop Traumatol 2020;21(1):3. DOI: 10.1186/s10195-019-0541-3.
  2. Fischgrund J, Paley D, Suter C. Variables affecting time to bone healing during limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;(301):31–37. PMID: 8156692.
  3. Galal S, Shin J, Principe P, et al. STRYDE versus PRECICE magnetic internal lengthening nail for femur lengthening. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022;142(12):3555–3561. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-03943-8.
  4. Robbins C, Paley D. Stryde weight-bearing internal lengthening nail. Tech Orthopaed 2020;35(3):201–208. DOI: 10.1097/BTO.0000000000000475.
  5. Kirane YM, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Precision of the PRECICE® internal bone lengthening nail. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2014;472(12):3869–3878. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3575-0.
  6. Landge V, Shabtai L, Gesheff M, et al. Patient satisfaction after limb lengthening with internal and external devices. J Surg Orthop Adv 2015;24(3):174–179. PMID: 26688988.
  7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Potential biocompatibility concerns with NuVasive specialized orthopedics’ precice devices – Letter to health care providers. 2021; Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/potential-biocompatibility-concerns-nuvasive-specialized-orthopedics-precice-devices-letter-health. Accessed on: 15 September 2022.
  8. Geffner AD, Reif TJ, Fragomen AT, et al. Use and safety of the Precice antegrade femoral nail in pediatric patients. J Limb Length Reconstr 2022;8(1):12–16. DOI: 10.4103/jllr.jllr_12_22.
  9. Laubscher M, Mitchell C, Timms A, et al. Outcomes following femoral lengthening: An initial comparison of the Precice intramedullary lengthening nail and the LRS external fixator monorail system. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(10):1382–1388. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.36643.
  10. Iliadis AD, Wright J, Stoddart MT, et al. Early results from a single centre's experience with the STRYDE nail: A cause for concern? Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1168–1172. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-2165.R1.
  11. Rölfing JD, Kold S, Nygaard T, et al. Pain, osteolysis, and periosteal reaction are associated with the STRYDE limb lengthening nail: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Acta Orthop 2021;92(4):479–484. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1903278.
  12. Hothi H, Bergiers S, Henckel J, et al. Analysis of retrieved STRYDE nails. Bone Joint Open 2021;2(8):599–610. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0126.
  13. Frommer A, Roedl R, Gosheger G, et al. Focal osteolysis and corrosion at the junction of Precice Stryde intramedullary lengthening device: Preliminary clinical, radiological, and metallurgic analysis of 57 lengthened segments. Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):425–436. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.107.BJR-2021-0146.R1.
  14. Jellesen MS, Lomholt TN, Hansen RQ, et al. The STRYDE limb lengthening nail is susceptible to mechanically assisted crevice corrosion: An analysis of 23 retrieved implants. Acta Orthop 2021;92(5):621–627. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1927506.
  15. Jones DM, Marsh JL, Nepola JV, et al. Focal osteolysis at the junctions of a modular stainless-steel femoral intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83(4):537–548. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200104000-00008.
  16. Ho JH, Leikin JB, Dargan PI, et al. Metal-on-metal hip joint prostheses: A retrospective case series investigating the association of systemic toxicity with serum cobalt and chromium concentrations. J Med Toxicol 2017;13(4):321–328. DOI: 10.1007/s13181-017-0629-1.
  17. Nawabi DH, Do HT, Ruel A, et al. Comprehensive analysis of a recalled modular total hip system and recommendations for management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98(1):40–47. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01121.
  18. Law JI, Crawford DA, Adams JB, et al. Metal-on-metal total hip revisions: Pearls and pitfalls. J Arthroplasty 2020;35(6S):S68–S72. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.01.011.
  19. Chang EY, McAnally JL, Horne JRV, et al. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: Do symptoms correlate with MR imaging findings? Radiology 2012;265(3):848–857. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120852.
  20. Assayag MJ, Bor N, Rubin G, et al. Circular hexapod external fixation for periprosthetic tibial fracture. Arthroplasty Today 2018;4(2):192–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2017.03.001.
  21. Napora JK, Weinberg DS, Eagle BA, et al. Hexapod stacked transport for tibial infected nonunions with bone loss: Long-term functional outcomes. J Orthop Trauma 2018;32(1):e12–e18. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001005.
  22. Hughes A, Heidari N, Mitchell S, et al. Computer hexapod-assisted orthopaedic surgery provides a predictable and safe method of femoral deformity correction. Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(2):283–288. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0271.R1.
  23. Schiedel F, Vogt B, Wacker S, et al. Walking ability of children with a hexapod external ring fixator (TSF®) and foot plate mounting at the lower leg. Gait Posture 2012;36(3):500–505. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.05.006.
  24. Jauregui J, Bor N, Thakral R, et al. Life- and limb-threatening infections following the use of an external fixator. Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(9):1296–1300. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B9.35626.
  25. Jennison T, McNally M, Pandit H. Prevention of infection in external fixator pin sites. Acta Biomater 2014;10(2):595–603. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.09.019.
  26. Patterson M. Impact of external fixation on adolescents: An integrative research review. Orthop Nurs 2006;25(5):300–308. DOI: 10.1097/00006416-200609000-00005.
  27. Thaller PH, Frankenberg F, Degen N, et al. Complications and effectiveness of intramedullary limb lengthening: A matched pair analysis of two different lengthening nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2020;15(1):7–12. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1448.
  28. Iobst CA, Frost MW, Rölfing JD, et al. Radiographs of 366 removed limb-lengthening nails reveal differences in bone abnormalities between different nail types. Bone Joint J 2021;103(11):1731–1735. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B.BJJ-2021-0549.R1.
  29. Green SA. The evolution of remote-controlled intramedullary lengthening and compression nails. J Orthop Trauma 2017;31(Suppl. 6):S2. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000844.
  30. Lee DH, Kim S, Lee JW, et al. A comparison of the device-related complications of intramedullary lengthening nails using a new classification system. BioMed Res Int 2017;2017. DOI: 10.1155/2017/8032510.
  31. Frost MW, Rahbek O, Traerup J, et al. Systematic review of complications with externally controlled motorized intramedullary bone lengthening nails (FITBONE and PRECICE) in 983 segments. Acta Orthop 2020;92(1):120–127. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1835321.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.