Comparison of Single-Stage and Dual-Stage Approaches for Nonunion Repair in the Absence of Evident Infections

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if routine dual-stage nonunion repair (DSR) surgery lead to better outcomes than single-stage nonunion (SSR) repair surgery in fracture nonunions without evident clinical or laboratory signs of infection. METHODS: Design: Retrospective comparison study Setting: Level One Trauma Center affiliated with an academic teaching hospital Patient selection Criteria: Skeletally mature patients diagnosed with fracture nonunion between June 2013 and January 2022 were included. Patients with previous non-operative treatment, definitive external fixation, previous or current diagnosis of FRI, or less than 12 months of follow-up were excluded. Outcome measures and comparison: Patient characteristics and details of the primary and the revision surgery were recorded. Comparison of the primary outcome measures - FRI, recalcitrant nonunion, and implant failures were performed between SSR and DSR groups RESULTS: A total of 113 patients met the eligibility criteria. Eighty-six patients (mean age 44.8 years, range – 17 – 80 years, 64 percent males) underwent SSR, while 27 patients (mean age 50.8 years, range 21-77 years, 52 percent males) underwent DSR. Seventy six percent underwent SSR and 24 percent underwent DSR. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (open fractures, p=0.918; smoking, p=0.86; lower limb fractures, p=0.238; Diabetes, p=0.503; ESR, p=0.27; CRP, p=0.11; age, p=0.11; CCI, p=0.06) except for a higher rate of DSR in cases initially treated elsewhere (p = 0.015) and in obese patients (p=0.044). Bone grafting was more frequent in DSR using plates (p = 0.030). No significant differences were observed in subsequent infections (6.97 % vs 7.41 %, p=0.939), persistent nonunion (28.2 % vs 14.81 %, p=0.169), or implant failure (19.76 % vs 22.22 %, p=0.782) between SSR and DSR. CONCLUSION: No difference was found in infection, recalcitrant nonunion, and implant failure between single stage repair and dual stage repair for nonunions without overt signs of infection. The study challenges the routine use of DSR, questions the necessity of subjecting patients to two surgical procedures, and advocates for a more judicious approach in the absence of overt FRI in a fracture nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III