MINIMALLY INVASIVE.
JOINT PRESERVING.
SOFT TISSUE SPARING.

* This product has not been evaluated by the FDA and is not available for sale in the U.S.

APPLICATIONS
& INDICATIONS

Meduloc has developed an intramedullary fixation device intended to assist doctors in fixing small and long-bone fractures. Our device is focused on fracture reduction and fixation control along with rotational stability.

Utilizing a minimally invasive and soft tissue sparing surgical approach, our device enables medical professionals to treat mid-shaft small bone fractures of the metacarpal, metatarsal, phalange, clavicle, radius, ulna and fibula.

Minimal inventory needed with implants sizes of 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5mm diameters designed to address all applications.

METACARPAL
& METATARSAL

Meduloc nail in clavicle xray_edited_edited.jpg

CLAVICAL

Meduloc nail in radius and ulna xray v3.png

RADIUS & ULNA

FIBULA

HOW IT WORKS

ROTATIONAL CONTROL
& REDUCTION

Implant provides rotational control of fracture and is cut to precisely fit patient anatomy.

Joint preserving and soft tissue sparing via minimally invasive approach that leaves joints intact.

No need to tie up your operating room for a second surgery to remove any wires, plates or screws.

FEATURES AND BENEFITS

CLINICALLY PROVEN TECHNIQUE

There is extensive clinical evidence to support the need for improved small bone fracture fixation as seen in the literature of studies on K-wires and Plate-Screw (PS) fixation. Current intramedullary nailing (IMN) has been well received, with some limitations due to the lack of compression, entry point and need for removal, issues that are solved with Meduloc’s design. Several authors have compared IMN to K-Wires or PS fixation.

Moon et.el., demonstrated that IMN and percutaneous K-wire fixation were similar in radiographic healing, however the IMN group returned to work sooner by an average of 2.3 weeks and had less complications than the K-wire group.

Hussain et.al., showed that while IMN and PS of clavicular fractures demonstrated equivalent functional outcomes, PS led to higher risk of failure and non-operative complications.

Similarly, Ozer et.al., showed no significant difference in clinical outcomes between IMN and PS however, operation time was shorter for IMN, but loss of reduction was higher for IMN. The loss of reduction can be attributed to not having compressive fixation of the IMN device in the study, an issue addressed with the Meduloc implant.

MINIMALLY INVASIVE. JOINT PRESERVING. SOFT TISSUE SPARING.

APPLICATIONS & INDICATIONS

METACARPAL & METATARSAL