Kirschner wire osteosynthesis for fractures in childhood: bury wires or not? : Results of a survey on care reality in Germany

• Published in: Der Unfallchirurg Vol. 121; no. 10; pp. 817 - 824
• Main Authors: Schneidmueller, D, Kertai, M, Bühren, V, von Rüden, C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: German
• Published: Germany 01.10.2018
• Subjects: Pediatric trauma; Kirschner wire; Supracondylar humeral fracture; Distal radius fracture
• ISSN: 1433-044X
• DOI: 10.1007/s00113-018-0465-z

Kirschner wire osteosynthesis is considered to be the standard technique for surgical fixation of displaced supracondylar humeral and distal radial fractures in children. The Kirschner wires can be left exposed or buried under the skin. Advantages of the epicutaneous technique are, e. g. the efficiency (cost, effort) and the possibility for wire removal without the necessity of a second anesthesia. On the other hand, there is a concern about higher infection rates as well as traumatization of the children due to externally visible wires. A web-based survey of members of the DGU, DGOU, DGOOC, and the pediatric traumatology section of the DGU (SKT) was performed to evaluate current treatment concepts in Germany. The pros and cons for each technique were recorded and the need for a clinical study was examined. In addition, a cost analysis was performed for both methods. The results from the literature are summarized and discussed. A total of 710 questionnaires were evaluated. The majority of the respondents were trauma surgeons working in a hospital (80%). The buried technique was superior in both fracture groups (supracondylar humeral fractures 73% and distal radius fractures 69%), whereas a relevant difference could be found depending on the profession. The main reason for the subcutaneous technique was anxiety or observed higher infections using the epicutaneous technique. In Germany, the majority of wires are buried under the skin due to a fear of higher infection rates. In addition, other influencing factors such as pain and traditional approaches play a significant role. With respect to the results in the literature as well as a possible improvement of efficiency and avoidance of a second anesthesia, a multicentric clinical study seems necessary in the future to compare both techniques.