Acta Ortopédica Mexicana

Camacho FLA, Montalvo GM, Zamora MP, Asís JJ, Testas HM
Femoral diaphyseal fractures treated with reamed and blocking centromedullary nail. Results and complications
Acta Ortop Mex 2005; 19 (3)

Language: Español
References: 12
Page: 112-115
PDF: 41.67 Kb.

[Fulltext - PDF]


Through a retrospective study, we evaluated a series of cases having been diagnosed with femoral diaphysial fracture and treated with a reamed and interlocked intramedullary nail. These treatments were performed at our Center between January 1999 and January 2004. During this period, 158 patients were studied. From them, 138 completed the study. To evaluate the follow-up period, we took 10 parameters into account: the close fracture, the ipsilateral trauma, multiple fractures, the early stabilization, the diameter of the implantation, the close reduction, the insertion site, the proper reduction, the stable fixing, and the complications. We report the following results: The male population was the most affected; the stabilization time was of 30 hours; the type of nail mainly employed was the universal AO; the blocking presenting less pseudoarthrosis cases was the dynamic blocking. When diameters smaller than 13 mm in men and 12 mm in women were used, there were cases of pseudoarthrosis. The site with fewest cases of pseudoarthosis was the pyriform fossa or cavity. SIRPA (related to thorax close trauma) complications and fatty embolism (without any kind of precedent) were reported. The early surgical treatment, the reduction technique, the early stabilization, the stable fixing, the proper insertion, and the lack of infections depend on the doctor in order to get satisfactory results.

Key words: Femoral fractures, diaphyses, intramedullary nailing.


  1. Levy D: The fat embolism syndrome. A review. Clin Orthop 1990; 261: 281-86.

  2. Ganorig BR: Fat embolism syndrome in isolated fractures of the tibia and femur. Clinic Orthop 1993; 291: 208-14.

  3. Robinson CM: Current concepts of respiratory insufficiency syndromes after fracture. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery Br 2001; 83B(6): 781-791.

  4. Pope HC, Regel G, Dwenger A, Sturm JA, Tsherme H: Primary intramedullary femur fixation in multiple trauma patients with associated lung contusion a cause of posttraumatic ARDS. J Trauma 2000; 35: 709-716.

  5. Ostrun RF, Verghese GB, Santer TJ: The lack of association between femoral shaft fractures and hypotensive shock. J Orthop Trauma 1993; 7: 338-342.

  6. Clawson K, Smith R, Hansen S: Closed intramedullary nailing of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1971; 53: 681-192.

  7. Winquist R, Hansen S, Clawson K: Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66: 529-539.

  8. Clatworthy MG, Clarck DI, Gray DH, Hardy AE: Reamed versus unreamed femoral nails, a randomized, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Sur 1998; 80B: 485-489.

  9. Brumback RJ, Uwagie-Ero S, Lakatos RP: Intramedullary nailing of the femoral shaft fractures part II fracture healing with static interlocking femoral fixation. J Bone Joint Surg 1998; 70A: 1453-1462.

  10. Allen WC, Heipe KG, Burstein AH: Fluted femoral intramedullary rod. J Bone Joint Surg 1978: 60: 506-515.

  11. 10. Brumback RJ, Rielly JP, Poka A, et al: Intramedullary Nailing of femoral shaft fractures. I: Decision–Maxing errors with interlocking fixation. J. Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1988; 70: 1441-1452.

  12. Martinez A, Forero F. Manejo e incidencia de fracturas de fémur tratadas en el HUV. Revista Colombiana de Ortopedia y Traumatología 1999; 13(2:) 11.