Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Prediction of Nonunion in the Diaphyseal Segment of Long Bones in Adults Using the RUST Score and Modified RUST Score

Anupam Gupta, C Prasanna, BK DinakarRai

Keywords : Diaphyseal segment, Modified radiographic union score for tibia, Nonunion, Radiographic union score for tibia

Citation Information : Gupta A, Prasanna C, DinakarRai B. Prediction of Nonunion in the Diaphyseal Segment of Long Bones in Adults Using the RUST Score and Modified RUST Score. 2024; 6 (1):12-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jojs-10079-1126

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 12-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Background: The study analyzed the radiographic union score for tibia (RUST) and modified radiographic union score for tibia (mRUST), a time-based scoring system for categorizing delayed union and nonunion, to assess 3-month fracture healing in the diaphyseal segment of long bones. Delayed union patients were treated with bone marrow or platelet-rich plasma injections and dynamization to reduce the rate of nonunion. Materials and methods: In this study, randomized patients were prospectively analyzed by RUST and modified RUST scores after internal fixation of tibial, humeral, and femoral fractures (AO/OTA tibia 42A, femur 32A, and humerus 12A). The aim was to define delayed union or nonunion based on the scoring system and time factor. The delayed union patients were offered simple secondary interventions. Patients at risk of nonunion were identified. Results: Out of 64 patients, only 48 patients completed regular follow-ups. The rate of nonunion was 6.25. The mean score of 5.33–5.67 at 3 months was consistent with those in previously published works on the tibia and femur. The 3-month mRUST score for humeral fractures had no predictive value. Conclusion: Lower 3-month RUST scores for tibial and femoral fractures are strongly associated with nonunion, and there is a need for secondary intervention. However, lower modified RUST scores for humeral fractures at 3 months had no prognostic value for detecting nonunion.

  1. Andersen C, Wragg NM, Shariatzadeh M, et al. The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of non-union fractures. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2021;19(1):1–14. DOI: 10.1007/s11914-020-00643-x
  2. Stewart SK. Fracture non-union: a review of clinical challenges and future research needs. Malays Orthop J 2019;13(2):1–10. DOI: 10.5704/MOJ.1907.001
  3. Volgas DA, Stannard JP, Alonso JE. Nonunions of the humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;(419):46–50. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200402000-00008
  4. Fong K, Truong V, Foote CJ, et al. Predictors of nonunion and reoperation in patients with fractures of the tibia: an observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:103. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-103
  5. Antonova E, Le TK, Burge R, et al. Tibia shaft fractures: costly burden of nonunions. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:42. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-42
  6. Whelan DB, Bhandari M, Stephen D, et al. Development of the radiographic union score for tibial fractures for the assessment of tibial fracture healing after intramedullary fixation. J Trauma 2010;68(3):629–632. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a7c16d
  7. Mundi R, Axelrod D, Chaudhry H, et al. Association of three-month radiographic union score for tibia fractures (RUST) with nonunion in tibial shaft fracture patients. Cureus 2020;12(5):e8314. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.8314
  8. Guevel B, Gokaraju K, Mohamed F, et al. A Comparative study of 6-week and 12-week radiographic union scores for humeral fractures (RUSHU) as a predictor of humeral shaft non-union. Shoulder Elbow 2022;14(3):295–303. DOI: 10.1177/17585732211033154
  9. Perumal R, Shankar V, Basha R, et al. Is nail dynamization beneficial after twelve weeks - an analysis of 37 cases. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2018;9(4):322–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.12.007
  10. Pesciallo CA, Garabano G, Alamino LP, et al. Effectiveness of nail dynamization in delayed union of tibial shaft fractures: relationship between fracture morphology, callus diameter, and union rates. Indian J Orthop 2022;56(3):386–391. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-021-00523-1
  11. Plumarom Y, Wilkinson BG, Willey MC, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of modified RUST score using clinical and radiographic findings as a gold standard. Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):796–805. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.210.BJO-2021-0071.R1
  12. Vaughn JE, Shah RV, Samman T, et al. Systematic review of dynamization vs exchange nailing for delayed/non-union femoral fractures. World J Orthop 2018;9(7):92–99. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v9.i7.92
  13. Misir A, Uzun E, Kizkapan TB, et al. Reliability of RUST and modified RUST scores for the evaluation of union in humeral shaft fractures treated with different techniques. Indian J Orthop 2020;54(Suppl 1):121–126. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-020-00182-8
  14. Corrales LA, Morshed S, Bhandari M, et al. Variability in the assessment of fracture-healing in orthopaedic trauma studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(9):1862–1868. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01580
  15. Ross KA, O'Halloran K, Castillo RC, et al. Prediction of tibial nonunion at the 6-week time point. Injury 2018;49(11):2075–2082. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.033
  16. Yang JS, Otero J, McAndrew CM, et al. Can tibial nonunion be predicted at 3 months after intramedullary nailing? J Orthop Trauma 2013;27(11):599–603. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31828f5821
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.