Skip to main content

Table 5 Operative Information of Patients Treated on Traction Table with Perineal Post

From: Are complications related to the perineal post on orthopaedic traction tables for surgical fracture fixation more common than we think? A systematic review

First Author (Year)

Study Participants, n

Mean Operating Time, hours

Patient Position, n(%)

Fracture Fixation Method

Fracture Table Details

Countertraction Post Details

Perineal Post Dimensions

Aprato et al. (2021)

95

1.22, SD not reported

Supine = 95(100%)

Femoral shaft fractures treated with Trigen femoral nail (Smith&Nephew); Subtrochanteric fractues fixed proximally with 2 cephalic screws

Brumback et al. (1992)

106

*2.8 ± 0.6

Supine = 106(100%)

1st generation static interlocking fixation for 97 patients (92%); 2nd generation (reconstruction) static interlocking nailing for 9 patients (8%)

Maquet Orthostar (Simens Medical Systems, Iseline, NJ, USA)

Perineal post diameter = 4.1 cm; perineal post with rubber cylinder padding diamter = 6.8 cm

Coelho et al. (2008)

6

5.6 ± 2.1

Locked intramedullary antegrade nail fixation = 6 patients (100%)

Hofmann et al. (1982)

4

3.6 ± 1.1

Prone = 2(50%); Supine = 2(50%)

Muscle-pedicle graft and modified Hagie-pin fixation of the hip = 2(50%); Intramedullary nailing = 1(25%); In situ pinning of fracture = 1(25%)

Kao et al. (1993)

63

3.45 ± 1.19

Supine = 51(81%), lateral decubitus = 12(19%)

6 types of intramedullary nails used depending on availability/surgeon preference: (1) Brooker-Wills IM nail (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA); (2) Russell-Taylor femoral nail (Richards, Memphis, TN, USA); (3) Russell-Taylor Recon nail (Richards, Memphis, TN,USA); (4) Pathfinder nail (Biomet, Warsaw, In, USA); (5) Grosse-Kempf nail (Howmedica, Rutherford, NJ, USA); (6) Kuntscher nail (Howmedica, Rutherford, NJ, USA)

Amsco Orthographics 2 fracture table (American Sterilizer, Erie, PA, USA) for 44 patients (70%); Chick fracture table (Chick Medical Products, Greenwood, SC, USA) for 19 patients (30%)

Information found in “Fracture Table Details” column

Amsco Orthographics 2 fracture table = 3.5 cm diameter; (supine position)wrapped with cotton-cast padding/silicone roll = 6 cm diameter; (lateral decubitus position) wrapped with 3 layers of cotton-cast padding = 8 cm diameter

Chick fracture table = 5.0 cm diameter; (supine position) wrapped with cotton-cast padding/silicone roll = 6 cm diameter

Mallet et al. (2005)

37

Supine = 37(100%)

Intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures for 37 patients (100%)

Alphamaquet 1150 orthopedic table (Maquet, Getinge Surgical Systems, Getinge, Sweden)

Information found in “Fracture Table Details” column

Parulekar et al. (2021)

3

Unknown position = 3(100%)

Intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures for 2 patients (67%); Sliding hip screw fixation for intertrochanteric fracture for 1 patient (33%)

Peterson et al. (1985)

4

3.80 ± 2.84

Supine = 2(50%), lateral decubitus = 2(50%)

Intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures for 4 patients (100%)

Rajbabu et al. (2007)

4

**4.67 ± 1.15

Supine = 2(50%), unknown position = 2(50%)

Orthofix intramedullary nail for 3 patients (75%); Unknown treatment for 1 patient (25%)

Rose et al. (2007)

29

Supine = 29(100%)

Static Intramedullary nailing = 29(100%)

perineal post diameter = 3.8 cm; wrapped with cast padding diameter = 8 cm

Descriptive Statistics

Total = 351

Mean Range = 1.22–5.6

Supine = 324(92.3%)

Lateral decubitus = 14(4.0%)

Prone = 2(0.6%)

Unknown = 11(3.1%)

Intramedullary nail = 347 (98.9%)

Muscle-pedicle graft and modified Hagie-pin fixation of hip = 2 (0.6%)

In-situ pinning of fracture = 1 (0.25%)

Sliding hip screw = 1(0.25%)

   
  1. “–“ denotes articles that did not report the variable; *SD was estimated with IQR using methods reported by Wan et al. [45]; **Missing Operating Time for 1 patient