Should we remove flexible intramedullary nails after diaphyseal forearm pediatric fracture? A cohort study of 288 patients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.46804Keywords:
Elastic stable intramedullary nailing, Forearm fracture, Paediatric orthopaedics, RemovalAbstract
Background and purpose: Routine removal of elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESIN) after pediatric diaphyseal forearm fractures remains common practice despite limited supporting evidence. We aimed to evaluate refracture risk following ESIN retention compared with implant removal and assessed complications and healthcare resource use.
Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients treated with ESIN for diaphyseal forearm fractures at a single center were included. Following a policy change, routine implant removal was discontinued in favor of retaining implants unless symptomatic. Patients were grouped into removal and non-removal. The primary outcome was refracture, analyzed using Cox regression, and early refractures (< 12 months), using logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included complications and healthcare resource utilization (outpatient visits, radiographic examinations during follow-up).
Results: 288 patients were included, of whom 136 underwent implant removal and 152 retained their implants. Among patients with implant retention, 9/152 (5.9%) subsequently required removal, most commonly due to implant-related irritation. Refracture occurred in 13/136 (9.6%) after implant removal and 8/152 (5.3%) after implant retention (absolute risk difference 4.3 percentage points, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.8 to 10.4; HR 1.4, CI 0.5–3.4). Early refracture occurred in 8/136 (5.9%) patients after implant removal and 5/152 (3.3%) after implant retention (absolute risk difference 2.6 percentage points, CI −2.3 to 7.5; OR 1.8, CI 0.6–6.2), including 3 cases within 6 months after removal. Complications occurred in 11/136 (8.1%) patients after implant removal. Infection occurred in 5/136 (3.7%) after implant removal vs 4/288 (1.4%) after the initial surgery (risk difference 2.3 percentage points, CI −1.2 to 5.7).
Conclusion: ESIN retention was well tolerated and associated with reduced healthcare utilization. No clear difference in refracture risk was observed between groups, although the study was not powered to detect moderate differences in risk.
Downloads
References
Rennie L, Court-Brown C M, Mok J Y Q, Beattie T F. The epidemiology of fractures in children. Injury 2007; 38: 913-22. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.01.010.
Hedström E M, Svensson O, Bergström U, Michno P. Epidemiology of fractures in children and adolescents. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 148-53. doi: 10.3109/17453671003628780.
Madhuri V, Dutt V, Gahukamble A D, Tharyan P. Conservative interventions for treating diaphyseal fractures of the forearm bones in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (4): CD008775. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008775.pub2.
Patel A, Li L, Anand A. Systematic review: functional outcomes and complications of intramedullary nailing versus plate fixation for both-bone diaphyseal forearm fractures in children. Injury 2014; 45: 1135-43. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.04.020.
Lyman A, Wenger D, Landin L. Pediatric diaphyseal forearm fractures: epidemiology and treatment in an urban population during a 10-year period, with special attention to titanium elastic nailing and its complications. J Pediatr Orthop B 2016; 25: 439-46. doi: 10.1097/BPB.0000000000000278.
Poutoglidou F, Metaxiotis D, Kazas C, Alvanos D, Mpeletsiotis A. Flexible intramedullary nailing in the treatment of forearm fractures in children and adolescents: a systematic review. J Orthop 2020; 20: 125-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.01.002.
Kruppa C, Bunge P, Schildhauer T A, Dudda M. Low complication rate of elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) of pediatric forearm fractures: a retrospective study of 202 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e6669. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006669.
Brattgjerd J E, Aasheim C, Rosenberg A, Fotland C, Halvorsen V. Long-term implant retention after impacted elastic stable intramedullary nailing in pediatric diaphyseal forearm fractures: a retrospective cohort study. Acta Orthop 2026; 97: 225-31. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2026.45693.
Lascombes P, Haumont T, Journeau P. Use and abuse of flexible intramedullary nailing in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 2006; 26: 827-34. doi: 10.1097/01.bpb.0000242430.04184.1c.
Lieber J, Schmid E, Schmittenbecher P P. Implant removal-associated complications after ESIN osteosynthesis in pediatric fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022; 48: 3767-74. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01763-4.
von Elm E, Altman D G, Egger M, Pocock S J, Gøtzsche P C, Vandenbroucke J P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008.
AO Foundation. AO Surgery Reference: Pediatric forearm shaft fractures – ESIN (Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing). Davos, Switzerland: AO Foundation. Available from: https://surgeryreference.aofoundation.org
Christensen R, Ranstam J, Overgaard S, Wagner P. Guidelines for a structured manuscript: statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 243-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11656.
Husum H C, Rahbek O, Gundtoft P H, Bang H C, Kold S, Rölfing J D, et al. The risk of refracture and malunion in children treated for diaphyseal forearm fractures: a retrospective cohort study. Acta Orthop 2025; 96: 189-94. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2025.42851.
Morshed S, Humphrey M, Corrales L A, Millett M, Hoffinger S A. Retention of flexible intramedullary nails following treatment of pediatric femur fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2007; 127: 509-14. doi: 10.1007/s00402-007-0286-y.
Wegner E, Laubach N, Schippers P, Schierjott L, Shrotriya R, Gercek E, et al. Clinical consequence of the 4-week X-ray control after ESIN osteosynthesis of forearm fractures in children. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2025; 51(1): 19. doi: 10.1007/s00068-024-02721-6.
Hansen R T, Borghegn N W, Gundtoft P H, Nielsen K A, Balslev-Clausen A, Viberg B. Change in treatment preferences in pediatric diaphyseal forearm fractures: a Danish nationwide register study of 36,244 fractures between 1997 and 2016. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 32-7. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.7132.
Busam M L, Esther R J, Obremskey W T. Hardware removal: indications and expectations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006; 14(2): 113-20. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200602000-00006.
Lascombes P, Haumont T, Journeau P. Use and abuse of flexible intramedullary nailing in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop 2006; 26(6): 827-34. doi: 10.1097/01.bpo.0000242430.78979.7f.
Raney E M, Freccero D M, Dolan L A, Lighter D E, Fillman R R, Chambers H G. Evidence-based analysis of removal of orthopaedic implants in the pediatric population. J Pediatr Orthop 2008; 28(7): 701-4. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318185d5e1.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Maria Tirta, Amalie Eikrem-Holsæter, Eline Borg Holt, Richard Olsson, Rune Bruhn Jakobsen, Per-Henrik Randsborg
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PlumX (by Elsevier) is an altmetrics platform that tracks and visualizes the online attention, usage, captures, citations, and social media engagement.
