Risk Factors for Development of a Recalcitrant Femoral Nonunion: A Single Surgeon Experience in 122 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The goals of the study were (1) to document the healing rates of femoral nonunions stratified by those that healed as intended, healed after a subsequent intervention, and those that did not heal; (2) to report the prevalence of recalcitrant femoral nonunions and (3) to identify specific demographic, injury, and treatment-related risk factors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational cohort study. SETTING: Academic Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-two femoral nonunions treated with either a plate or intramedullary nail by a single surgeon between 1991 and 2018. INTERVENTION: Bivariate and multivariate regression analysis were performed to identify specific demographic, injury, and treatment factors in patients who developed a recalcitrant nonunion. RESULTS: Although 83.6% of the femoral nonunions eventually healed, only 66% "healed as intended" with 17.2% requiring 1 or more additional procedures to consolidate and 16.4% of nonunions failing to unite. There were no statistically significant differences in the recalcitrance rate when we compared treatment with conventional versus locked plates or primary versus exchange nailing. Risk factors for developing a recalcitrant nonunion were deep infection, current smokers, metabolic bone disease, and patients who had undergone 3 or more prior surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The use of both intramedullary nails and modern plates were associated with a high rate of recalcitrance. Infection, current smokers, metabolic bone disease, and 3 or more prior surgical procedures were predictors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Leve IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Healing the Index Tibial Nonunion: Risk Factors for Development of a Recalcitrant Nonunion in 222 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare and stratify the healing rates after our index nonunion surgery using contemporary methods of fixation, report the prevalence of recalcitrant non-union, and identify specific demographic, injury, and treatment-related risk factors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. SETTING: Academic Level 1 Trauma Center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-two tibial nonunions treated with internal fixation by a single surgeon. INTERVENTION: Bivariate and multivariate regression analysis were performed to compare healing rates by the type of fixation and graft augmentation and to identify specific demographic, injury, and treatment-related risk factors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients, 162 (73%) healed as intended and 51 (23%) required 1 or more subsequent interventions to achieve union (96%). Nine fractures (4%) failed to unite. The 60 fractures (27%) that required a subsequent intervention(s) or failed to consolidate were defined as recalcitrant nonunions. There were no statistically significant differences in the recalcitrant rate when we compared plates versus nails or types of bone graft. Risk factors for developing a recalcitrant nonunion were multifactorial and included grade III open fractures, compartment syndrome, deep infection, and 2 or more prior surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Internal fixation remains a successful method of treatment for most tibial nonunions. However, 27% of patients required a subsequent intervention because of failure to heal our index nonunion procedure. Factors that are associated with recalcitrant nonunions were a grade III open fracture, compartment syndrome, deep infection, and 2 or more or more prior surgical procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clavicle nonunion: plate and graft type do not affect healing rates-a single surgeon experience with 71 cases.

BACKGROUND: Clavicle nonunions often result after nonoperative treatment for the acute fracture. Those that require >1 surgical procedure in order for a nonunion to heal are termed recalcitrant. The aims of the present study were to (1) determine healing rates of clavicle nonunions after plate osteosynthesis using either a conventional or locked plate, (2) compare iliac crest bone graft vs. bone morphogenetic protein on nonunion healing, and (3) identify risk factors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 78 clavicle nonunions treated with open reduction and plate fixation with or without graft augmentation by a single surgeon over 25 years. Seventy-one patients over the age of 18 with at least 12 months of follow-up comprised the study group. We analyzed healing rates after the index clavicle nonunion surgery comparing plate type and graft technique as well as identifying risk factors for developing a recalcitrant nonunion. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients (87.3%) healed after their index nonunion surgery at our institution. Three patients (4.2%) required additional surgery but healed, and 6 patients (8.5%) remain un-united; these 9 patients (12.7%) were defined as recalcitrant. There was no statistically significant difference in healing rates between plate type (P = .633) or type of bone graft (P = .157). There were no identifiable risk factors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: Plate fixation of clavicle nonunions remains a successful method of treatment. The type of plate or the method of bone graft did not produce different results. There were no demographic, patient, or injury characteristics associated with the development of a recalcitrant nonunion.

Healing the Index Humeral Shaft Nonunion: Risk Factors for Development of a Recalcitrant Nonunion in 125 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Humeral shaft nonunions are challenging to treat, and those that require >1 surgical procedure in order for a nonunion to heal are termed recalcitrant. Most studies on nonunion have evaluated the union rate independent of the number of procedures required to achieve union. The aims of the present study were (1) to compare the healing rates after the index operation for the treatment of a nonunion with conventional versus locked plating with or without graft augmentation, (2) to report the prevalence of recalcitrant nonunion, and (3) to identify risk factors that predict a recalcitrant nonunion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 125 humeral shaft nonunions treated with open reduction and plate fixation by a single surgeon over 25 years. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to compare healing rates by type of plate fixation and biological augmentation and to identify demographic, injury, and treatment-related risk factors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients (84%) had healing after the index procedure for the treatment of nonunion. Twenty patients (16.0%) required secondary procedures and were defined as having a recalcitrant nonunion. Eight of these patients (6.4% of the overall group) healed after the secondary interventions, and 12 (9.6% of the overall group) had a failure to unite. There were no significant differences in healing rates between conventional and locked plates or between the types of bone graft (autogenous or recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein). Risk factors for the development of a recalcitrant nonunion were plate fixation of the acute humeral fracture, a history of deep infection, and ≥2 prior procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Plate fixation with bone graft augmentation remains a successful method for the treatment of humeral shaft nonunions. Neither plate type nor graft type reduced the risk of a recalcitrant nonunion. Factors that predicted a recalcitrant nonunion were operative fixation of the acute fracture with a plate, a history of deep infection, and ≥2 surgical procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.