Intramedullary nailing for impending or pathologic fracture of the long bone: titanium vs carbon fiber peek nailing

Purpose The aim of this study is to compare titanium vs carbon fiber intramedullary (IM) nailing in terms of response to radiotherapy, local control of the disease, time of surgery, fluoroscopy exposure, and complications. Methods From 2015 to 2021, 52 impending or pathologic fractures were treated with IM nailing in 47 patients: 18 males and 29 females with a mean age of 73. Titanium nails were used in 27 cases: femur (17 cases), humerus (8 cases), and tibia (2 cases). Carbon fiber nails were used in 25 cases: femur (17 cases), humerus (7 cases), and tibia (1 case). Results At a mean follow-up of 8.4 months, most patients died from the disease (63.4%). Fracture healing without osteolysis progression was present in 52% of titanium nailing at a mean time of 6 months and in 53% of carbon fiber nails at a mean time of 4.6 months. No statistically significant difference has been shown in terms of healing (P = 0.5), intraoperative fluoroscopy (P = 0.7), and time of surgery in femoral nailing (P = 0.6), while a significantly lower surgical time for carbon fiber humeral nailing (P  = 0.01) was found. Two breakages of carbon fiber femoral nails were observed, and both were treated with revision with modular tumor megaprosthesis. Conclusions Our results suggest that surgical time and fluoroscopy exposure are not longer for carbon fiber nails compared to titanium ones. Healing seems to be faster in carbon fiber nails. Further clinical studies are needed to clarify the long-term outcomes of these implants.