Fitbone vs Precice: Is There a Difference in Regenerate Healing?

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic surgery
• Biomaterials engineering
• Regenerative medicine

Background:

• Intramedullary lengthening nails (ILN) are established limb reconstruction tools, offering stability and precise control compared to external fixators.
• Motorized ILNs, such as Fitbone and Precise, provide sub-millimeter accuracy and reduce complications like pin site infections.
• The Fitbone system uses electrical current, while the Precise system employs a rotating magnet for lengthening.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate and compare bone regenerate formation after femoral lengthening using two distinct motorized ILNs: Fitbone and Precise.
• To assess the efficacy and complication rates associated with each implant system.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective review of 13 patients (Fitbone) and 14 patients (Precise) undergoing femoral lengthening.
• Regenerate formation was quantified using the pixel ratio value (PVR) on serial radiographs.
• Complications related to bone, soft tissues, and implants were meticulously recorded.

Main Results:

• No statistical difference was observed in PVR measurements between the Fitbone and Precise groups at any time interval.
• Full bone consolidation was achieved in all patients, with no significant difference in the time to full weight-bearing.
• The Fitbone group experienced complications including bolt migration and premature consolidation; the Precise group reported no complications.

Conclusions:

• Both Fitbone and Precise ILNs are effective for femoral lengthening, yielding comparable bone regenerate formation and consolidation.
• The choice of implant should not be based on anticipated regenerate formation, as both systems perform similarly.
• Further investigation into the Fitbone's complication rate may be warranted, potentially related to its newer technology and learning curve.