Chronic knee pain following infrapatellar/suprapatellar magnetic intramedullary lengthening nails versus external fixators in limb length discrepancy: A retrospective review

Aims & objectives:Prior to the popularization of magnetic intramedullary nails (MILNs), gradual deformity correction using external fixation was the norm in limb lengthening. Trauma literature has shown MILN via a suprapatellar approach (SP) to be associated with less knee pain than either an infrapatellar entry (IP) or external fixation. Yet, no research has investigated chronic knee pain and MILNs. We assessed differences in chronic knee pain following lengthening via an IP or SP approach with an MILN versus external fixation. Materials & methods:We reviewed 147 limbs (55 MILN/IP, 22 MILN/SP, 71 external fixator) in 124 patients who underwent tibial lengthening with ≥12 months follow-up between February 2012 and July 2020. Knee pain was assessed pre- and postoperatively at 6 and 12 months, with the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (LKSS) and numeric pain scale (0-10). Differences in knee pain outcomes were compared across methods, with subgroup analysis of MILN/SP and MILN/IP. Results:Mean LKSS was 96.3 for external fixation and 88.5 for MILN (P = .011). In the MILN subgroups, mean LKSS was 91.7 for IP and 85.3 for SP. The IP group reported a lesser mean pain score (0.6 versus 2.1) at 12 months. Bilateral nail recipients demonstrated no knee pain differences versus unilateral. At 12 months postoperative, external fixation had better knee outcomes. Conclusion:Tibial lengthening with external fixation was associated with less chronic anterior knee pain and better functional outcomes than MILN overall. In terms of MILN approach, IP surpassed SP on subjective pain scores. Larger tibial lengthening and knee pain studies are warranted.