Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Reamed Versus Nonreamed Anterograde Femoral Nailing

Tornetta, Paul III; Tiburzi, Douglas*

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma: January 2000 - Volume 14 - Issue 1 - pp 15-19
Original Articles

Objective: To compare reamed femoral nailing with unreamed femoral nailing.

Design: Prospective, randomized.

Setting: Two Level One trauma centers.

Patients: One hundred seventy patients with 172 femur fractures were randomized to an unreamed or reamed group.

Main Outcome Measures: Data included demographics, Injury Severity Score (ISS), operative time, blood loss, blood and fluid requirements, technical complications, time to callus formation, time to union, and complications.

Results: There was no statistical difference in operative time, transfusion requirements, or hypoxic episodes between the groups. Intraoperative blood loss was greater in the reamed group. The time to union was 80 ± 35 days for the reamed group and 109 ± 62 days for the unreamed group (p = 0.002). This difference was most dramatic in the distal femur, with union in the reamed group occurring in 80 days compared with 158 days in the unreamed group (p = 0.012). There were more technical complications and delayed unions in the unreamed group.

Conclusions: There is no advantage to the routine use of nailing without reamed insertion. Fractures treated with reamed nails heal faster than those treated with unreamed nails, especially distal fractures.

Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; and *Brookdale Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.

Accepted April 2, 1999.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Paul Tornetta III, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Dowling 2 North, 818 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02118, U.S.A.

This paper was selected as one of the best papers presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association in Vancouver, Canada, October 1998.

No financial support of this project has occurred. The authors have received nothing of value.

This manuscript does not contain information about medical devices.

© 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.