A clinical and radiological matched-pair analysis of patients treated with the PRECICE and STRYDE magnetically driven motorized intramedullary lengthening nails

Abstract

AimsDistraction osteogenesis with intramedullary lengthening devices has undergone rapid development in the past decade with implant enhancement. In this first single-centre matched-pair analysis we focus on the comparison of treatment with the PRECICE and STRYDE intramedullary lengthening devices and aim to clarify any clinical and radiological differences.MethodsA single-centre 2:1 matched-pair retrospective analysis of 42 patients treated with the STRYDE and 82 patients treated with the PRECICE nail between May 2013 and November 2020 was conducted. Clinical and lengthening parameters were compared while focusing radiological assessment on osseous alterations related to the nail’s telescopic junction and locking bolts at four different stages.ResultsOsteolysis next to the telescopic junction was observed in 31/48 segments (65%) lengthened with the STRYDE nail before implant removal compared to 1/91 segment (1%) in the PRECICE cohort. In the STRYDE cohort, osteolysis initially increased, but decreased or resolved in almost all lengthened segments (86%) after implant removal. Implant failure was observed in 9/48 STRYDE (19%) and in 8/92 PRECICE nails (9%). Breakage of the distal locking bolts was found in 5/48 STRYDE nails (10%) compared to none in the PRECICE cohort. Treatment-associated pain was generally recorded as mild and found in 30/48 patients (63%) and 39/92 (42%) in the STRYDE and PRECICE cohorts, respectively. Temporary range of motion (ROM) limitations under distraction were registered in 17/48 (35%) segments treated with the STRYDE and 35/92 segments (38%) treated with the PRECICE nail.ConclusionOsteolysis and periosteal reaction, implant breakage, and pain during lengthening and consolidation is more likely in patients treated with the STRYDE nail compared to the PRECICE nail. Temporary ROM limitations during lengthening occurred independent of the applied device. Implant-related osseous alterations seem to remodel after implant removal. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):88–96.