Femoral Lengthening in Children: A Comparison of Motorized Intramedullary Nailing Versus External Fixation Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Femoral lengthening is associated with high complication rates often related to the type of surgical device used to perform the lengthening. The advent of intramedullary lengthening devices has promised a reduction in complications when compared with external fixation systems. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of femoral lengthening in children using a motorized intramedullary nail (Precice) versus an external fixation system (Taylor Spatial Frame-TSF; or Monolateral Rail System-MRS) at a single institution, single surgeon practice. METHODS: This study is a retrospective comparison of pediatric patients who had previously undergone femoral lengthening (±deformity correction). Patients ages 8 to 18 years of age were included and grouped based on whether they had undergone Precice nailing or external fixation (TSF or MRS) between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (32 femurs) were included. Thirteen patients (15 femurs) had undergone Precice nailing and 14 patients (17 femurs) had undergone external fixation. The Precice group had significantly fewer problems, obstacles, and complications than the external fixation group, Precice 6.6%, 0%, 0%, respectively, and external fixation 47.1%, 29.4%, 0% respectively (P<0.01). Unplanned return to the operating room occurred in 4 cases, solely in the external fixation group. There were no differences in percentage of goal length achieved, Precice (mean 93.6%, range: 66.7% to 114.3%), external fixation (mean 96%, range: 76.9% to 117.5%) P=0.31 and total length achieved, Precice (mean: 44 mm, range: 20 to 80 mm), external fixation (mean: 46 mm, range: 10 to 70 mm) P=0.72. There was no difference in consolidation index, Precice (24.1 d/cm), external fixation (28.5 d/cm) P=0.36. The Precice group had a significantly shorter length of stay (mean: 2.2 d, range: 1 to 4 d), compared with the external fixation group (mean: 3.7 d, range: 2 to 8), P=0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral lengthening in children using a motorized intramedullary nail was associated with a markedly reduced rate of complications and shorter length of stay compared with external fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".