Objectives

The Precice nail is the latest intramedullary lengthening nail with excellent early outcomes. Implant complications have led to modification of the nail design. The aim of this study was to perform a retrieval study of Precice nails following lower-limb lengthening and to assess macroscopical and microscopical changes to the implants and evaluate differences following design modification, with the aim of identifying potential surgical, implant, and patient risk factors.

Introduction. Motorised intramedullary lengthening nails are considered more expensive than external fixators for limb lengthening. This research aims to compare the cost of femoral lengthening in children using the PRECICE magnetic lengthening nail with external fixation. Materials and Methods. Patients: Retrospective analysis of 50 children who underwent femoral lengthening. One group included patients who were treated with PRECICE lengthening nails, the other group included patients who had lengthening with external fixation. Each group included 25 patients aged between 11–17 years. The patients in both groups were matched for age. Cost analysis was performed following micro-costing and analysis of the used resources during the different phases of the treatments. Results. : Each group's mean patient age was 14.7 years. Lengthening nails were associated with longer operative times compared to external fixators, both for implantation and removal surgery (P-value 0.007 and <0.0001 respectively). Length of stay following the implantation surgery, frequency of radiographs, frequency of outpatient department appointments were all more favourable with lengthening nails. The overall cost of lengthening nails was £1393 more than external fixators, although this difference was not statistically significant (P-value 0.088). Conclusions. The cost of femoral lengthening with lengthening nails was not significantly higher than the external fixators’ cost. Further research to review the effectiveness of the devices and the quality of life during the lengthening process is crucial for robust health economic evaluation

Background:. External fixators are not as well tolerated around the femur when compared to the tibia. Lengthening with an intramedullary device is therefore attractive. Method:. We reviewed all cases of femoral lengthening performed at our unit from 2007 to 2014. Cases of non-unions, concurrent deformities, congenital limb deficiencies and lengthening with an unstable hip were excluded. This left 33 cases for review. Healing index, implant tolerance and complications were compared. Results and Discussion:. In 20 cases the Precice lengthening nail was used and in 13 cases the LRS external fixator system. The desired length was achieved in all cases in the Precice group and in 12 of 13 cases in the LRS group. The Precice group had a more rapid return to full weight bearing. The mean healing index was 31.3 days/cm in the Precice and 47.1 days/cm in the LRS group. There was an increased incidence of complications with LRS lengthening, including pin site infections and regenerate deformity. Implant tolerance and the patients' perception of the cosmetic result were better with the Precice treatment. Conclusion:. We conclude excellent functional results with fewer complications and greater patient satisfaction in femoral lengthening with a Precice intramedullary nail

Background:. Leg length discrepancy related to absence of the femoral head with proximal migration of the femur presents a treatment dilemma. Late sequelae of neonatal hip sepsis and chronic hip dislocation due to developmental dysplasia are the most common causes. Traditional teaching dictates that the hip is stabilised prior to limb lengthening. Reconstructive options alter the shape of the proximal femur which complicates future surgery. Methods:. We retrospectively reviewed 3 cases of femoral lengthening with an ‘unstable’ hip without prior stabilization. The aetiology was neonatal hip sepsis in 2 cases and chronic hip dislocation due to developmental dysplasia in 1 case. Lengthening was performed with the use of a retrograde Precice lengthening nail. Results and Discussion:. The desired length (range 5.5 to 6cm) was achieved in all patients without migration of the proximal femur. In all cases patient satisfaction was high with the lengthening and the ability to abort shoe raises. There was an improvement in gait pattern in all patients. Conclusion:. Femoral lengthening is possible without prior stabilisation of the hip in so called ‘unstable’ hip situations. The proximal femoral anatomy is not further altered and future salvage procedures such as a total hip replacement are not compromised