Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose:

Telescoping intramedullary rods have transformed the management of long bone deformity and fragility fractures in children, yet complications and revision surgery remain common. This systematic review synthesizes outcomes across telescoping systems to evaluate complication and revision rates, telescoping success, and design evolution to guide implant selection and surgical decision-making in pediatric orthopedics.

Methods:

A search was conducted through July 2025 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies reporting outcomes of telescoping rods in pediatric patients were included. Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesized descriptively and presented as weighted means per operated bone.

Results:

Thirty-three studies (861 patients; 2054 rods) were included. Weighted mean complication and revision rates were 49.6% and 25.7% for Bailey-Dubow rods, 61.1% and 24.5% for Sheffield rods, 37.1% and 30.5% for Fassier-Duval rods, 14.9% and 9.0% for corkscrew-locking rods, and 46.7% and 6.7% for distal-female rods. Telescoping success was 48% for Bailey-Dubow, 74% for Fassier-Duval, 94% for corkscrew, and 100% for distal-female designs. Variation in follow-up duration and definitions of complications contributed to differences in reported rates.

Conclusions:

Modern telescoping rods have reduced migration and mechanical failure compared with earlier designs, yet complication and revision rates remain substantial. Newer systems show encouraging early results but require longer follow-up for validation. Differences in bone anatomy and biomechanics strongly influence implant performance, underscoring the need to tailor rod selection to individual bones.

Significance:

This review consolidates published complication and revision rates across telescoping rod designs, establishing a foundation for comparison as newer implants are introduced and long-term outcome data become available.

Level of Evidence:

III.

Keywords

Telescoping rods intramedullary rods bone fragility disorders osteogenesis imperfecta limb deformity fracture

Introduction

Pediatric long bone deformities and recurrent fractures are common in bone fragility disorders, such as osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) and congenital tibial pseudarthrosis. Children present unique surgical challenges, as their bones are smaller, softer, and continually growing. Conventional fixation methods risk damaging the physis or requiring frequent revision as the child grows. Intramedullary fixation has therefore become central in pediatric orthopedics, offering stabilization along the length of the bone while preserving growth potential.¹ Intramedullary (IM) rodding has evolved significantly since Sofield and Millar² first described IM fixation with multiple osteotomies in 1959. Early non-telescoping solid rods provided mechanical support but were plagued by complications such as migration, frequent revisions, and failure to accommodate growth.^3–5 These limitations necessitated the development of growth-accommodating implants, setting the stage for telescoping rod technology.

The first telescoping rod, the Bailey-Dubow (BD) rod, was introduced in 1963 by Robert Bailey and Harold Dubow.⁶ It featured a male T-shaped rod sliding within a female cylinder, providing epiphyseal-to-epiphyseal fixation and lengthening with growth (Figure 1(a)).¹ However, the design required arthrotomies and often led to complications such as T-piece detachment and rod migration.^7,8 In response, the Sheffield rod was developed in the late 1980s to overcome the limitations of the BD design, incorporating design changes, such as fixing the T-piece on both ends to prevent disconnection and migration (Figure 1(b)).⁹ While the Sheffield system reduced certain complications, it still required revision surgeries due to rod-related failures.⁹ The most significant advancement came in 2001 with the Fassier-Duval (FD) rod, developed by François Fassier and Pierre Duval (Figure 1(c)). This system enabled minimally invasive percutaneous insertion, sparing joint cartilage, and provided adjustable intraoperative sizing, leading to its widespread adoption and recognition as the standard of care in many centers.¹

Figure 1.

Examples of telescoping intramedullary rods: (a) Bailey-Dubow rod, (b) Sheffield rod, and (c) Fassier-Duval rod.^10–12

Despite improvements, complications, such as migration, rod disengagement, and the need for revision surgery, persist with the FD system.¹ To address these, newer telescoping designs have been developed, including different distal locking mechanisms, like a corkscrew¹³ (Figure 2(a)), or different biomechanical principles, like inserting the female part distally (Figure 2(b)).¹⁴ In addition, lower-cost modifications of the FD rod have been reported in resource-limited settings, highlighting efforts to balance innovation with affordability and accessibility.^15,16

Figure 2.

Examples of more recent telescoping intramedullary rod designs: (a) corkscrew-tip rod and (b) distal-female segment rod.^14,17

Although telescoping rodding has transformed pediatric limb deformity management, significant challenges remain. Reported complication rates remain high, outcomes are variable, and there is no universal consensus on an optimal implant. Reported outcomes and complications are highly variable in the literature, with few randomized controlled trials or high-quality comparative studies available. As new designs continue to emerge, there is a pressing need to synthesize the evolving evidence. This systematic review aims to map the current landscape of telescoping rods in pediatric orthopedics, summarize innovations and complications, and identify gaps to guide future research and clinical practice.

Methods

Search strategy

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was executed during July 2025 using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. The search strategy combined MeSH terms and text words, including telescoping rod, elongating rod, intramedullary nail, orthopedic surgery, bone deformity, and pediatric orthopedics. Boolean operators (or, and) and asterisks for truncation were used to optimize the search results. References of relevant studies were also reviewed.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case–control studies, (2) pediatric populations, (3) telescoping rods used in long bones, and (4) provided outcomes related to a specific telescoping rod.

Studies were excluded if they (1) were abstracts, case reports, cadaver studies, animal studies, (2) involved spinal rods, (3) used rods for limb lengthening (i.e., external fixation or magnetic rods), (4) combined data with solid rods, (5) lacked sufficient detail regarding the type of rod used, or (6) were not available in English or French.

Literature screening and data extraction

Search results from all databases were uploaded to Covidence, and duplicates were automatically removed. Titles and abstracts were screened in reviewer pairs to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Full texts of eligible articles then underwent further screening. Disagreements were discussed between the two reviewers to reach a consensus, and conflicts were resolved by the senior author, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon.

Data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized sheet created for this review. Extracted information included study characteristics (i.e., author, year), study design, population demographics (i.e., sample size, age, sex, follow-up, diagnosis, bones, ambulatory status, bisphosphonate use), surgical indications, rod type, complications, rod survival/revision rate, telescoping rate, functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and other key findings. The extracted data were stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Results

Study selection

A total of 33 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis (Figure 3). In total, 712 studies were excluded for reasons such as irrelevance to the research question, lack of extractable data, wrong study design, and unavailability of the full text.

Figure 3.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the study design.

All included studies were retrospective in design. The primary surgical indications reported across studies were limb deformity and fracture management. Reporting of patient ambulatory status and bisphosphonate use was inconsistent. A summary of study characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Study characteristics.

Author	Year	Rod	Patients (No.)	Age (years)	Sex (M:F)	Follow-up (years)	Diagnosis	Bones
Karbowski¹⁸	2000	BD	63	4.1 (1–12)	NR	5.6 (1–10)	OI	101 F, 71 T, 14 H
Jerosch¹⁹	1998	BD	29	7.5	NR	3.5 (0.2–9.0)	OI	51 F, 40 T, 10 H, 6 U
Gamble⁴	1988	BD	29	5.0	12:17	3.1 (1–9)	OI	NR
Lang-Stevenson²⁰	1984	BD	10	8.7 (4.6–14.0)	8:2	2.2	OI	17 F, 11 T
Marafioti³	1977	BD	12	5.6	NR	5.6 (0.1–8.3)	OI	25 F, 17 T, 5 H
Bilsel²¹	2000	BD	5	6.0 (5–8)	4:1	12.3 (11–14)	OI	10 F, 2 T
Zionts²²	1998	BD	15	7.0 (2.2–11.0)	7:8	6.2 (1.5–18.0)	OI	23 F, 17 T
Porat⁵	1991	BD	20	6.4 ± 3.5 (1–14)	8:12	9.8	OI	NR
Nicholas²³	1990	BD	16	5.2 (1–13)	8:8	4.8 (2–10.5)	OI	26 F, 22 T, 8 H
Janus⁸	1999	BD	34	4.8 (1.4–12.6)	17:17	3.6 (0.7–7.0)	OI	64 F, 46 T
Laidlaw²⁴	1998	BD	4	6.5	1:3	2.3	Myelomeningocele, Rett syndrome, Fibrous Dysplasia	4 F, 1 T
Georges²⁵	2025	BD	31	3.1	18:13	2.7	OI	54 F
Mulpuri¹¹	2000	Sheffield	9	6.3 (2–13)	NR	5.6 (2–9)	OI	25 F, 17 T, 5 H
Wilkinson⁹	1998	Sheffield	24	6.2 (2.1–13.3)	11:13	5.3 (1.4–10.2)	OI	35 F, 25 T
Nicolaou²⁶	2011	Sheffield	22	5.8 (2.0–13.3)	NR	19.0 (13–29)	OI	40 F, 23 T, 3 H
El-Adl²⁷	2009	Sheffield	5	4.8	NR	7.2 (6–8)	OI	9 F, 5 T
Goiano¹²	2023	FD	15	10.5 (3.9–16.4)	8:7	5.2 (1.4–7.0)	OI	18 F, 3 T
Fralinger²⁸	2023	FD	43	6.8 ± 3.4	23:20	≥1.0	OI	91 F, 77 T
Yang²⁹	2023	FD	209	6.0 (2–13)	185:137 (rods)	≥2.0	OI	322 F
Suresh³⁰	2021	FD	14	5.7 ± 3.4	10:4	7.2 ± 4.7	OI	21 T, 3 F
Musielak³¹	2021	FD	19	7.7 (2.0–14.8)	9:10	4.4 (1.0–5.9)	OI	37 F, 21 T
Holmes³²	2020	FD	13	4.9 ± 3.6	2:11	8.9 ± 5.0	OI	66 F + T (distribution NR)
Spahn³³	2019	FD	21	6.1 ± 3.4	2:24 (rods)	≥2.0	OI	14 F, 12 T
Grossman³⁴	2018	FD	18	4.1 (1.4–10.2)	7:11	3.6 ± 2.3	OI	35 H
Azzam³⁵	2018	FD	58	4.0 (1.1–16.0)	20:38	Median 5.0 (2–8)	OI	93 F, 86 T
Lee³⁶	2016	FD	12	3.1 (1.8–8.3)	6:6	NA	OI, rickets, CPT, NF1	36 F, 15 T
Birke³⁷	2011	FD	15	5.0 (1.5–12.5)	6:9	≥1.0 (1.0–2.4)	OI	14 T, 10 F
Cox³⁸	2020	FD	34	5.0 (1–14)	NR	4.2 (1.5–11.0)	OI	45 F, 27 T
Landrum³⁹	2019	FD	9	6.7 (3.3–11.8)	7:2	4.9 (1.0–10.8)	OI	9 F, 11 T
Gunay⁴⁰	2017	Corkscrew	14	6.9 ± 3.0 (3–13)	9:5	2.0 ± 0.5	OI	14 F, 6 T
Sarikaya¹³	2019	Corkscrew	9	6.9 ± 3.5 (3–11.2)	7:2	2.7 ± 0.5 (2.0–3.5)	OI	12 F, 5 T
Erdal¹⁷	2021	Corkscrew	15	8.5 (3–14)	9:12	2.4 (2.0–3.7)	OI	30 T
Liu¹⁴	2023	Distal Female Part	15	3.0 (1.6–6.0)	9:6	1.5 (1.3–2.1)	CPT	15 T

BD: Bailey-Dubow; FD: Fassier-Duval; OI: Osteogenesis imperfecta; CPT: Congenital Pseudarthrosis of the Tibia; NF1: Neurofibromatosis 1; F: Femur; T: Tibia; NR: Not reported.

The 33 included studies comprised 861 patients and 2054 rods. Studies were separated into 5 groups according to the type of telescoping rod evaluated: 12 studies on BD rods, 4 studies on Sheffield rods, 13 studies on FD rods, 3 studies on corkscrew locking rods, and 1 study on rods with a distal female segment. Intraoperative challenges, overall complication rates, specific complications, revision rates, and telescoping rates are summarized for each rod type. Considerable heterogeneity was present in the reporting of these outcomes, particularly revision rates and telescoping success, which were strongly influenced by variability in follow-up duration across studies. Telescoping success was defined as any increase in length across studies.

Bailey-Dubow rod

Twelve articles were identified discussing the Bailey-Dubow rod. Across these studies, 268 patients were included with a weighted mean age of 5.5 years at the time of surgery and a weighted mean follow-up of 5.0 years. Among those reporting on sex, 48.9% (n = 65) were male, and 51.1% (n = 68) were female. Most patients (98.3%) had a diagnosis of OI, while the remaining 1.7% presented with myelomeningocele, Rett syndrome, or fibrous dysplasia. Ten studies specified the treated bones. Among a total of 645 Bailey-Dubow rod insertions, there were 375 femurs, 227 tibias, 37 humeri, and 6 ulnas. Reported outcomes varied across studies, with complications, revisions, and telescoping rates summarized in Table 2. The weighted mean complication and revision rate per operated bone were 49.6% and 25.7%, respectively (Table 7).

Table 2.

Summary of reported complications, revision rates, and telescoping rates in studies of the Bailey-Dubow telescoping rod.

Study	Intraoperative challenges	Complication rate (%)	Complications (No.)	Revision rate (%)	Telescoping rate (%)
Karbowski¹⁸	Rod insertion, nail placement errors, and epiphyseal vulnerability	38.7	Rod migration (47) Hardware failure (26) Infection (2)	25.3	NR
Jerosch¹⁹	Nail length and positioning	63.5	Rod migration (49) Hardware failure (9) Fracture (24) Deformity (10) Pseudoarthrosis (2)	16.8	NR
Gamble⁴	NR	69.0	Hardware failure (7) Unspecified (22)	19.0	NR
Lang-Stevenson²⁰	NR	78.6	Rod migration (10) Excessive rod length (1) Hardware failure (4) Fracture (3) Infection (3)	32.1	NR
Marafioti³	NR	34.0	Hardware failure (15) Fracture (1)	NR	NR
Bilsel²¹	NR	58.3	Rod migration (6) Infection (1)	25.0	NR
Zionts²²	NR	80.0	Rod migration (30) Hardware failure (8) Infection (1) Deformity (1)	25.0	NR
Porat⁵	NR	72.0	Rod migration (5) Hardware failure (17) Infection (1)	44.0	NR
Nicholas²³	Cardiac arrhythmia, osteotomy site comminution	53.6	Rod migration (6) Fracture (5) Hardware failure (19)	37.5	NR
Janus⁸	NR	40.9	Rod migration (101) Hardware failure (48) Fracture (29) Deformity (15) Pseudoarthrosis (1) Contracture (39) Calcification (34) Limb-length discrepancy (11)	29.0	NR
Laidlaw²⁴	NR	20.0	Fracture (1)	0.0	NR
Georges²⁵	Precise alignment and drilling, avoiding femoral neck injury	52.0	Hardware failure (28)	NR	48.0

NR: Not reported.

Sheffield rod

Four articles examined the Sheffield telescoping rod, including a total of 60 patients with a weighted mean age of 6.0 years and a weighted mean follow-up time of 10.5 years. Sex was only reported by Wilkinson et al., and 54.2% (n = 11) were female. All patients (100%) had a diagnosis of OI. Across all studies, Sheffield telescoping rods were inserted into 187 bones, including 109 femurs, 70 tibias, and 8 humeri. Complication, revision, and telescoping rates for the Sheffield rod are summarized in Table 3. Per operated bone, there was a weighted mean complication rate of 61.1%, and a weighted mean revision rate of 24.5% (Table 7).

Table 3.

Summary of reported complications, revision rates, and telescoping rates in studies of the Sheffield telescoping rod.

Study	Intraoperative challenges	Complication rate (%)	Complications (No.)	Revision rate (%)	Telescoping rate
Mulpuri¹¹	NR	100.0	Rod migration (28) Fracture (4) Hardware failure (7) Deformity (5) Incorrect hardware placement (15) Bursitis (1)	23.4	NR
Wilkinson⁹	NR	42.0	Rod migration (11) Fracture (6) Hardware failure (1) Infection (1) Deformity (1) Rod outgrown (6)	18.0	NR
Nicolaou²⁶	NR	57.6	Rod migration (9) Fracture (5) Hardware failure (2) Infection (5) Deformity (1) Limb-length discrepancy (1) Rod outgrown (6) Nonunion (3)	35.0	NR
El-Adl²⁷	NR	28.6	Rod migration (2) Fracture (1) Incorrect hardware placement (1)	7.2	NR

NR: not reported.

Fassier-Duval rod

Thirteen articles used the FD rod, including a total of 480 patients with a weighted mean age of 5.8 years and a weighted mean follow-up of 5.1 years. In 12 studies, all the patients had OI, while the remaining study included patients with OI, rickets, congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia (CPT), and neurofibromatosis. Across the 13 studies, a total of 1066 FD rods were reported, including 678 femurs, 287 tibias, and 35 humeri. An additional 66 rods were placed in either the femur or tibia, but were not further specified. Data for each study are found in Table 4. The weighted mean complication rate per operated bone was 37.1%, while the weighted mean revision rate per operated bone was 30.5% (Table 7).

Table 4.

Summary of reported complications, revision rates, and telescoping rates in studies of the Fassier-Duval telescoping rod.

Study	Intraoperative challenges	Complication rate (%)	Complications (No.)	Revision rate (%)	Telescoping rate (%)
Goiano¹²	NR	33.3	Peri-implant fracture (3), loosening distal component (3), metallosis (1)	4.8	71.4
Fralinger²⁸	NR	NR	NR	33.3	NR
Yang²⁹	NR	23.1	Breakage/bending (38), proximal migration (27), distal migration (23), growth arrest (5), non-union (2)	22.0	NR
Suresh³⁰	Need to bend pin tips to reduce backout	46.0	Rod migration (6), interlocking pin (11), deformity (2)	58.3	NR
Musielak³¹	NR	44.8	Male migration (27), female migration (15), fracture (5), rotation (5), axial deformity (2), rod migration (2), shortening (2), osteomyelitis (2)	24.1	51.9
Holmes³²	NR	42.4	Pull-out of physis (NR), failure to telescope (NR), protrusion into joint (NR), rod bending (NR)	NR	89.4
Spahn³³	NR	15.4	Bent implant (1), implant pull-out (2), refracture (1)	15.4	NR
Grossman³⁴	Difficult proximal entry with severe varus deformity	34.3	Migration (3), deformity (3), fracture (6)	34.3	NR
Azzam³⁵	Intra-articular nail penetration (4 cases); osteotomy comminution (7 cases)	46.0	Fracture (21), rod bending (10, rod migration (6), pain (10), non-union (26)	46.0	80.0
Lee³⁶	NR	33.0	Rod bending	NR	54.5
Birke³⁷	Joint intrusion; difficulty reaming osteopenic bone; rod migration during insertion	45.0	Migration, non-telescoping, joint intrusion, nonunion	16.0	83.3
Cox³⁸	NR	68.1	Fractures (24), failure of osteotomy/fracture remodeling (12), loss of fixation (31), migration (13), coxa vara (4), deep infection (1)	33.0	NR
Landrum³⁹	Distal migration of epiphyseal fixation (2), difficulty cutting proximal tibial male rod (4), intraoperative femur fracture (1), guidewire perforation into foot (1)	60.0	Proximal rod migration (8), fractures (4)	40.0	NR

NR: Not reported.

Corkscrew rods

Three articles reported on the use of corkscrew rods, including a total of 38 patients with a weighted mean age of 7.8 years and a weighted mean follow-up of 2.4 years. All patients had a diagnosis of OI. Across all studies, 67 corkscrew rods were inserted, comprising 26 femurs and 41 tibias. Data for both studies are shown in Table 5. The weighted mean complication rate was 14.9%, while the weighted mean revision rate was 9.0% (Table 7).

Table 5.

Summary of reported complications, revision rates, and telescoping rates in studies of corkscrew telescoping rods.

Study	Intraoperative challenges	Complication rate (%)	Complications (No.)	Revision rate (%)	Telescoping rate (%)
Gunay⁴⁰	Tip of nail perforating bone cortex in two cases (corrected intra-op)	10.0	Superficial infection (1), deep infection (1)	5.0	NR
Sarikaya¹³	The tip can break if forcibly advanced	17.6	Limited telescoping (1), delayed union (1), fracture (1)	11.8	94.1
Erdal¹⁷	NR	16.7	Outgrowing of rod (2), angulation (1), delayed union (1), protruding wire causing pain (1)	10	NR

NR: not reported.

Distal female segment rods

At the time of our search, one study described a telescoping rod with a female distal segment. This study used 15 rods in 15 patients with a mean age of 3.0 years and a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. All patients were diagnosed with unilateral Crawford type 4 CPT, and all rods were inserted in the tibia. Outcomes are described in Table 6.

Table 6.

Summary of reported complications, revision rates, and telescoping rates in studies of distal female segment telescoping rods.

Study	Intraoperative challenges	Complication rate (%)	Complications (No.)	Revision rate (%)	Telescoping rate (%)
Liu¹⁴	NR	46.7	Rod migration (7)	6.7	100

NR: not reported.

Table 7.

Summary of outcomes for each rod.

Rod	# of studies	# of rods	Mean follow-up (years)	Complication rate (%)	Revision rate (%)	Telescoping rate (%)
BD	12	645	5.0	49.6	25.7	48.0
Sheffield	4	187	10.5	61.1	24.5	NR
FD	13	1066	5.1	37.1	30.5	74.0
Corkscrew	3	67	2.4	14.9	9.0	94.1
Distal female segment	1	15	1.5	46.7	6.7	100

BD: Bailey-Dubow; FD: Fassier-Duval.

All of the Sheffield and corkscrew rods were used in patients with OI, and all of the distal female segment rods were used in patients with CPT. There was one study in each of the BD and FD rod groups, which included patients with diagnoses other than OI. Analyzing the complications, revision, and telescoping rates in these groups, excluding the mixed studies, gives similar results. For BD rods, in patients with OI, the complication rate is 49.8%, the revision rate is 25.9%, and the telescoping rate is 48.0%. For FD rods, in patients with OI, the complication rate is 37.3%, the revision rate is 30.5%, and the telescoping rate is 76.8%.

Discussion

The development of telescoping intramedullary rods was driven by the need to reduce repeated surgeries in children with OI and other bone fragility disorders. Non-elongating devices frequently require replacement as the child grows, leading to multiple hospitalizations and increased surgical risk. Over time, several designs have been introduced, aiming to improve stability, ease of insertion, and long-term durability. For example, various distal fixation tip designs have emerged and continue evolving across the different generations of implants (Figure 4). Current evidence shows wide variation in outcomes across systems, reflecting the ongoing refinement of implant technology and surgical technique. Although some of the challenges seen with earlier devices have improved, there is still room for optimization.

Figure 4.

Examples of distal fixation tips in telescoping intramedullary rods: (a) corkscrew, (b) threaded, and (c) non-threaded designs.¹³

When comparing outcomes between the rods, clear differences emerge between earlier and more recent designs. The BD and Sheffield rods, which represented important early advances, are consistently associated with high complication rates, including rod migration, component disengagement, and hardware failure. The FD rod is currently the most widely used telescoping rod and demonstrates lower rates of complication compared to its predecessors. Nonetheless, rod failures due to bending, migration, and failed telescoping remain present (Figure 5). Newer designs, such as corkscrew locking rods and rods incorporating a distal female segment, have been developed to address these challenges and to accommodate the wide variability in long bone deformities seen in these populations, but follow-up times remain shorter than those of the other rods, so complication and revision rates should be interpreted accordingly.

Figure 5.

Radiographs demonstrating rod outcomes: (a) Immediately postoperative, showing appropriate alignment and fixation; (b) four years later, with rod bending, loss of distal fixation, and arrest of telescoping.³⁶

Traditionally, identical telescoping rod designs have been applied to both the femur and tibia, despite important anatomical and biomechanical bony differences. The tibia, which is subcutaneous and subjected to greater bending forces, is more prone to severe angulation and recurrent deformity, whereas the femur demonstrates more rapid longitudinal growth. These distinctions suggest that bone-specific design features may be advantageous: a distal female segment may improve tibial stability by reducing the risk of recurrent deformity and hardware failure, while a stronger distal locking mechanism, such as the corkscrew design, may better accommodate the femur’s faster growth. Clinical data for these systems, however, remain limited. To date, only three studies have reported outcomes for the corkscrew rod, and a single study has described a distal female rod of unspecified design. No large peer-reviewed series exists for either design. Recently, the Rodeo™ nail (OrthoFix, Lewisville, TX, USA) and the TST™ nail (TST Medical Devices, Istanbul, Turkey) have been introduced as next-generation telescoping rods designed to address the shortcomings of earlier systems. The Rodeo™ nail, which recently received FDA approval, is a telescoping rod that incorporates a distal female segment inserted from below, whereas the TST™ nail features a distal corkscrew locking mechanism intended to enhance stability and reduce migration. The clinical performance of both systems will become clearer as peer-reviewed outcomes begin to emerge.

In addition to the five groups of telescoping rods included in this review, other designs have been developed in resource-limited studies while adopting the same telescoping concept. Rangasamy et al.¹⁶ described a novel, low-cost telescopic nail constructed from a modified Küntscher nail as the female component and an ulnar square nail as the male component, with additional modifications to allow both proximal and distal locking (Figure 6(a)). The interlocking geometry of the square profile within the cloverleaf Küntscher nail was intended to provide rotational stability. The device was used for intramedullary fixation of the femur and tibia in children with OI. With an estimated cost of approximately $25 USD compared to $200–240 USD for other telescopic nails available in the Indian market, a key advantage of this system was its affordability,¹⁶ However, the authors reported technical issues, including difficulty with the telescoping mechanism, attributed to non-uniformity in the cut ends of the components. Similarly, Rosemberg et al.¹⁵ reported on a telescopic intramedullary rod developed and manufactured locally in Brazil for use in patients with moderate to severe OI (Figure 6(b)). The device consisted of two stainless-steel components, with proximal fixation achieved through transchondral sutures at the greater trochanter and distal fixation provided by a threaded male component. In their series of 21 patients undergoing 52 femoral procedures with nearly 10 years of follow-up, they found revision rates were lower than those reported for the FD rod at comparable intervals. Fracture and rod migration were the most common causes of failure. Importantly, the results were obtained using a rod at costs less than 1% of the FD rod.¹⁵ Although both of these systems remain limited to small institutional experiences, they demonstrate how locally engineered solutions can expand access to telescoping technology in low- and middle-income countries.

Figure 6.

Examples of two custom-made telescoping rod designs developed as lower-cost alternatives to commercially available systems. (a) Rangasamy et al. design featuring a proximal hook for fixation. (b) Rosemberg et al. design before a revision surgery for a fracture.^15,16

The FD rod remains the most widely used telescoping system and continues to serve as the benchmark against which newer devices are measured. Its design has mitigated many of the problems seen with early implants, yet revision and complication rates are still far from negligible. Emerging options, including corkscrew-locking rods and rods with a distal female segment, are promising innovations. Yet, their true value will only become evident with longer follow-up and larger series. For now, implant selection should be individualized, considering the bone involved, the degree of deformity, and the available resources. Large, prospective, multicenter studies are needed to assess complication rates, revision rates, and functional outcomes. This review provides a foundation for further development by highlighting both the strengths and shortcomings of current devices. With better data and continued design refinements, telescoping rods have the potential to reduce the number of required operations and improve long-term function in children with OI.

Limitations

All included studies were retrospective and primarily consisted of small, single-center series, increasing the risk of selection and reporting bias. There was considerable heterogeneity in definitions of outcomes such as “complication,” “revision,” and “telescoping success,” making direct comparisons between rods challenging. Variability in follow-up duration also likely influenced reported complication and revision rates, as studies with longer observation periods naturally capture more cumulative events. In addition, functional outcomes, such as gait performance or standardized mobility scores, were rarely reported, limiting assessment of the true clinical impact of each implant type. Hence, these factors should be considered when interpreting the findings and highlight the need for prospective, standardized multicenter studies in the future.

Conclusion

Telescoping intramedullary rods have transformed the surgical management of children with OI and other bone fragility disorders by offering a means of reducing repeated operations during growth. The evolution from early systems, such as the BD and Sheffield rods, to the more widely adopted FD design reflects steady improvements in stability, ease of use, and clinical outcomes. Newer concepts, including corkscrew-locking rods and rods with a distal female segment, aim to address persistent challenges such as migration and recurrent deformity. Nonetheless, these innovations require long-term validation before widespread adoption. With more options now emerging, treatment should be tailored to the bone involved and its biomechanical demands.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-cho-10.1177_18632521261423059 – Supplemental material for Evolution and outcomes of telescoping intramedullary rods in pediatric bone fragility disorders: A systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-cho-10.1177_18632521261423059 for Evolution and outcomes of telescoping intramedullary rods in pediatric bone fragility disorders: A systematic review by Peter Joseph Mounsef, Jack Legler, Dev Patel and Reggie Hamdy in Journal of Children's Orthopaedics

Footnotes

Author contributions

Peter Joseph Mounsef: Conceptualized the study, performed the literature search, data extraction, analysis, and manuscript drafting.

Jack Legler: Contributed to data collection, verification, manuscript drafting, and critical manuscript review.

Dev Patel: Assisted with data extraction and verification and contributed to manuscript editing.

Reggie Hamdy: Supervised the project and critically reviewed the final manuscript.

Data availability statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. All data used in this systematic review were obtained from previously published studies cited within the article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

This article is a systematic review of previously published studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Therefore, ethical approval and informed consent were not required.

ORCID iDs

Peter Joseph Mounsef

Jack Legler

Dev Patel

References

Fassier

Telescopic rodding in children: technical progression from Dubow–Bailey to Fassier-Duval™. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2021; 107: 102759.

Sofield

Millar

EA.

Fragmentation, realignment, and intramedullary rod fixation of deformities of the long bones in children: a ten-year appraisal. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 1959; 41: 1371–1391.

Marafioti

Westin

GW.

Elongating intramedullary rods in the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977; 59: 467–472.

Gamble

Strudwick

Rinsky

, et al. Complications of intramedullary rods in osteogenesis imperfecta: Bailey-Dubow rods versus nonelongating rods. J Pediatr Orthop 1988; 8: 645–649.

Porat

Heller

Seidman

, et al. Functional results of operation in osteogenesis imperfecta: elongating and nonelongating rods. J Pediatr Orthop 1991; 11: 200–203.

Bailey

Dubow

HI.

Studies of longitudinal bone growth resulting in an extensible nail. Surg Forum 1963; 14: 455–458.

Millar

EA.

Observation on the surgical management of osteogenesis imperfecta. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981: 154–156.

Janus

Vanpaemel

Engelbert

, et al. Complications of the Bailey-Dubow elongating nail in osteogenesis imperfecta: 34 children with 110 nails. J Pediatr Orthop B 1999; 8: 203–207.

Wilkinson

Scott

Clarke

, et al. Surgical stabilisation of the lower limb in osteogenesis imperfecta using the Sheffield Telescopic Intramedullary Rod System. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 999–1004.

10.

Stockley

Bell

Sharrard

WJ.

The role of expanding intramedullary rods in osteogenesis imperfecta. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989; 71: 422–427.

11.

Mulpuri

Joseph

Intramedullary rodding in osteogenesis imperfecta. J Pediatr Orthop 2000; 20: 267–273.

12.

Goiano

Akkari

Costa

, et al. Treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta using the Fassier-Duval telescopic rod. Acta Ortop Bras 2023; 31: e266775.

13.

Sarikaya

Seker

Erdal

, et al. Using a corkscrew-tipped telescopic nail in the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta: a biomechanical study and preliminary results of 17 consecutive cases. J Pediatr Orthop B 2019; 28: 173–178.

14.

Liu

Zheng

Huang

, et al. Clinical study of a new type of telescopic rod for the treatment of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia in children. J Pediatr Orthop B 2023; 32: 405–410.

15.

Rosemberg

Goiano

Akkari

, et al. Effects of a telescopic intramedullary rod for treating patients with osteogenesis imperfecta of the femur. J Child Orthop 2018; 12: 97–103.

16.

Rangasamy

Sudesh

Gopinathan

, et al. A novel, low-cost telescopic nail design for prevention and treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta associated long-bone pathological fractures in children. Indian J Orthop 2022; 56: 1277–1284.

17.

Erdal

Gorgun

Sarikaya

, et al. Retro-patellar approach in telescopic nailing of the tibia in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. J Child Orthop 2021; 15: 388–394.

18.

Karbowski

Schwitalle

Brenner

, et al. Experience with Bailey-Dubow rodding in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2000; 10: 119–124.

19.

Jerosch

Mazzotti

Tomasevic

Complications after treatment of patients with osteogenesis imperfecta with a Bailey-Dubow rod. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1998; 117: 240–245.

20.

Lang-Stevenson

Sharrard

WJ.

Intramedullary rodding with Bailey-Dubow extensible rods in osteogenesis imperfecta. An interim report of results and complications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984; 66: 227–232.

21.

Bilsel

Beyzadeoglu

Kafadar

Application of Bailey-Dubow rods in the treatment of Osteogenesis Imperfecta. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2000; 10: 183–187.

22.

Zionts

Ebramzadeh

Stott

NS.

Complications in the use of the Bailey-Dubow extensible nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998: 186–195.

23.

Nicholas

James

Telescoping intramedullary stabilization of the lower extremities for severe osteogenesis imperfecta. J Pediatr Orthop 1990; 10: 219–223.

24.

Laidlaw

Loder

Hensinger

RN.

Telescoping intramedullary rodding with Bailey-Dubow nails for recurrent pathologic fractures in children without osteogenesis imperfecta. J Pediatr Orthop 1998; 18: 4–8.

25.

Georges

Saliba

Finidori

, et al. Retrograde femoral nailing for deformity correction and fracture treatment in osteogenesis imperfecta: clinical and radiological assessment of a novel technique. Sicot J 2025; 11: 26.

26.

Nicolaou

Bowe

Wilkinson

, et al. Use of the Sheffield telescopic intramedullary rod system for the management of osteogenesis imperfecta: clinical outcomes at an average follow-up of nineteen years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 1994–2000.

27.

El-Adl

Khalil

Enan

, et al. Telescoping versus non-telescoping rods in the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta. Acta orthopaedica Belgica 2009; 75: 200–208.

28.

Fralinger

Kraft

Rogers

, et al. The fate of the bent rod in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. J Pediatr Orthop 2023; 43: e465–e470.

29.

Yang

Xing

, et al. Which is the best femoral implant in children with osteogenesis imperfecta? a retrospective cohort study of 783 procedures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023; 24: 110.

30.

Suresh

Vankara

Lentz

, et al. Interlocking fixation in Fassier-Duval rods: performance and success factors. J Pediatr Orthop 2021; 41: 525–529.

31.

Musielak

Woźniak

Sułko

, et al. Problems, complications, and factors predisposing to failure of Fassier-Duval rodding in children with osteogenesis imperfecta: a double-center study. J Pediatr Orthop 2021; 41: e347–e352.

32.

Holmes

Gralla

Brazell

, et al. Fassier-Duval rod failure: is it related to positioning in the distal epiphysis? J Pediatr Orthop 2020; 40: 448–452.

33.

Spahn

Mickel

Carry

, et al. Fassier-Duval rods are associated with superior probability of survival compared with static implants in a cohort of children with osteogenesis imperfecta deformities. J Pediatr Orthop 2019; 39: e392–e396.

34.

Grossman

Price

Rush

, et al. Initial experience with percutaneous IM rodding of the humeri in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. J Pediatr Orthop 2018; 38: 484–489.

35.

Azzam

Rush

Burke

, et al. Mid-term results of femoral and tibial osteotomies and Fassier-Duval nailing in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. J Pediatr Orthop 2018; 38: 331–336.

36.

Lee

Paloski

Sponseller

, et al. Bent telescopic rods in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta. J Pediatr Orthop 2016; 36: 656–660.

37.

Birke

Davies

Latimer

, et al. Experience with the Fassier-Duval telescopic rod: first 24 consecutive cases with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop 2011; 31: 458–464.

38.

Cox

Mouazzen

Bleibleh

, et al. Combined two-centre experience of single-entry telescopic rods identifies characteristic modes of failure. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B: 1048–1055.

39.

Landrum

Birch

Richards

BS.

Challenges encountered using Fassier-Duval rods in osteogenesis imperfect. Curr Orthopaed Prac 2019; 30: 318–322.

40.

Günay

Kucuk

İnan

The results of the treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta with corkscrew tipped telescopic nail. J Pediatr Res 2017; 4(1): 17–20.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.47 MB