Background and purposeFracture non-union remains a major clinical problem, yet there are no data available regarding the overall risk of fractures progressing to non-union in a large population. We investigated the rate of non-union per fracture in a large adult population.MethodsNational data collected prospectively over a 5-year period and involving just under 5,000 non-unions were analyzed and compared to the incidence of fracture in the same period.Results and interpretationThe overall risk of non-union per fracture was 1.9%, which is considerably less than previously believed. However, for certain fractures in specific age groups the risk of non-union rose to 9%. As expected, these higher rates of non-union were observed with tibial and clavicular fractures, but—less expectedly—it was in the young and middle-aged adults rather than in the older and elderly population. This study is the first to examine fracture non-union rates in a large population according to age and site, and provides more robust (and lower) estimates of non-union risk than those that are frequently quoted.
This review is aimed at clinicians appraising preclinical trauma studies and researchers investigating compromised bone healing or novel treatments for fractures. It categorises the clinical scenarios of poor healing of fractures and attempts to match them with the appropriate animal models in the literature. We performed an extensive literature search of animal models of long bone fracture repair/nonunion and grouped the resulting studies according to the clinical scenario they were attempting to reflect; we then scrutinised them for their reliability and accuracy in reproducing that clinical scenario. Models for normal fracture repair (primary and secondary), delayed union, nonunion (atrophic and hypertrophic), segmental defects and fractures at risk of impaired healing were identified. Their accuracy in reflecting the clinical scenario ranged greatly and the reliability of reproducing the scenario ranged from 100% to 40%. It is vital to know the limitations and success of each model when considering its application.
ObjectivesIn the UK there are approximately 850 000 new fractures seen each year. Rates of non-union of 5–10% of fractures have been suggested, the cost to the National Health Service of treating non-union has been reported to range between £7000 and £79 000 per person yet there are little actual data available. The objective of this epidemiological study therefore is for the first time to report the rates of fracture non-union.DesignA cross-sectional epidemiological study.SettingThe population of Scotland.ParticipantsAll patient admissions to hospital in Scotland are coded according to diagnosis. These data are collected by (and were obtained from) Information Services Department Scotland. Those who have been coded for a bone non-union between 2005 and 2010 were included in the study. No patients were excluded. Population data were obtained from the Registrar General for Scotland.Outcome measureThe number of fracture non-unions per 100 000 population of Scotland according to age, sex and anatomical distribution of non-union.Results4895 non-unions were treated as inpatients in Scotland between 2005 and 2010, averaging 979 per year, with an overall incidence of 18.94 per 100 000 population per annum. The distribution according to gender was 57% male and 43% female. The overall peak incidence according to age was between 30 and 40 years. The mean population of Scotland between 2005 and 2010 was 5 169 140 people.ConclusionFracture non-union in the population as a whole remains low at less than 20 per 100 000 population and peaks in the fourth decade of life. Further research is required to determine the risk of non-union per fracture according to age/sex/anatomical distribution..
ObjectivesA successful outcome following treatment of nonunion requires the correct identification of all of the underlying cause(s) and addressing them appropriately. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution and frequency of causative factors in a consecutive cohort of nonunion patients in order to optimise the management strategy for individual patients presenting with nonunion.MethodsCauses of the nonunion were divided into four categories: mechanical; infection; dead bone with a gap; and host. Prospective and retrospective data of 100 consecutive patients who had undergone surgery for long bone fracture nonunion were analysed.ResultsA total of 31% of patients had a single attributable cause, 55% had two causes, 14% had three causes and 1% had all four. Of those (31%) with only a single attributable cause, half were due to a mechanical factor and a quarter had dead bone with a gap. Mechanical causation was found in 59% of all patients, dead bone and a gap was present in 47%, host factors in 43% and infection was a causative factor in 38% of patients.In all, three of 58 patients (5%) thought to be aseptic and two of nine (22%) suspected of possible infection were found to be infected. A total of 100% of previously treated patients no longer considered to have ongoing infection, had multiple positive microbiology results.ConclusionTwo thirds of patients had multiple contributing factors for their nonunion and 5% had entirely unexpected infection. This study highlights the importance of identifying all of the aetiological factors and routinely testing tissue for infection in treating nonunion. It raises key points regarding the inadequacy of a purely radiographic nonunion classification system and the variety of different definitions for atrophic nonunion in the current mainstream classifications used for nonunion.Cite this article: L. Mills, J. Tsang, G. Hopper, G. Keenan, A. H. R. W. Simpson. The multifactorial aetiology of fracture nonunion and the importance of searching for latent infection. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:512–519. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2016-0138.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.