Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 41  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 167-172

Rush nail and management of fracture both bone forearm

1 Department of Orthopedics, BMCH, Burdwan, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Physiology, BMCH, Burdwan, West Bengal, India
3 Department of Pathology, BMCH, Burdwan, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Arunima Chaudhuri
Krishnasayar South, Borehat, Burdwan - 713 102, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0974-5009.141207

Rights and Permissions

Background: The failure of the conventional nailing of both bone of the forearm poses a potential problem of nail migration and rotational instability, despite the best reduction. Objectives: Rush nail is a very handy, low cost easily available implant. In the present study, we have tried to find out its applicability if used in the closed manner under C-arm control without injurying soft tissues and preserving the periosteal vascularity. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted on thirty adult subjects. Skeletally mature subjects with Gustilo type 1 open and closed fractures without the neurovascular deficit were included. Stainless steel rush nails were used for all patients for both radius and ulnar repair. Patients were followed-up for a minimum of 4 months and maximum of 1.5 years. Results: The mean age of study participants was 37.43 years. Mean time of the union was 14.32 weeks. Average operative time was 67.16 min. No intraoperative complication occurred nor was any nailing converted to some other form of fixation, except in three cases radial nail was introduced by open method through anterior Henry's approach. Cast support was maintained for a mean of 7.43 weeks, after that forearm brace was applied for a mean period of 6.26 weeks and continued until radiographic union was seen. Three patients showed non-union of radius mostly distal third. They were treated with open reduction and internal fixation with locking plate and bone grafting. One patient had extensor tendon injury. Two patients have superficial infection which cured with antibiotics. One case had delayed union of radius which required bone grafting. Two patients had gross restrictions of wrist movements and pronation-supination movement. Using Anderson criteria 22 patients had satisfactory results (71.33%), three patients had excellent result. Three patients had non-unions (10%). Implant removal was performed in two cases about 14 months post-operatively and no refracture has been reported until date (after 4 months). Conclusion: Use of rush nail continues to have predictable and good results. Complication rates are lower when compared to plate osteosynthesis and even in locked intramedullary nails although application of above elbow cast after nailing is a downside of this procedure. The rush nail has still a future in repair of forearm fractures considering its low complications rates, cost and acceptable results in a developing country where financial matters are to be considered.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded555    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal