Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 201–207 | Cite as

Treatment of distal tibial fractures: prospective comparative study evaluating two surgical procedures with investigation for predictive factors of unfavourable outcome

  • Enrico Vaienti
  • Paolo SchiaviEmail author
  • Francesco Ceccarelli
  • Francesco Pogliacomi
Original Paper
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare clinical and radiological outcome of intramedullary nailing (IMN) and locked plate (LP) in patients affected by fracture of the distal tibia (DTF). We performed also an analysis to identify predictive factors of unfavourable outcome.

Methods

Data about patients with DTF treated at our first level trauma centre between 2008 and 2017 were collected. Patients were divided in group 1 (IMN) and group 2 (LP). The inclusion criteria were age at least 18 years at the time of diagnosis and unilateral DTF (closed or Gustilo 1). Demographic variables and data related to surgical procedure and hospitalization were registered. X-ray at follow-up was reviewed to identify malunions and nonunions. Clinical outcome was evaluated using scores and registering any complication.

Results

One hundred two patients were included in group 1 and 81 in group 2. In group 2 were documented higher operating time and hospitalization. The mean union time was 20.2 weeks for IMN and 24.8 weeks for LP group (p = 0.271). The rate of infections and wound complications was higher in group 2 while malunion and anterior knee pain were more frequent in group 1. No difference in scores for clinical outcome was documented after six months. The full-weight bearing time was significantly longer in the LP group (p = 0.019). At multivariate analysis, no variables showed a predictive power for unfavourable outcome.

Conclusions

Clinical and radiological results of LP and IMN appear similar. No predictive factors of unfavourable outcome were identified.

Keywords

Distal tibial fracture Plate fixation Intramedullary nailing Outcome Fibular fracture 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The Local Research Ethics Service approved the study, which was conducted following the principles of Declaration of Helsinki. All patients signed informed consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Freedman EL, Johnson EE (1995) Radiographic analysis of tibial fracture malalignment following intramedullary nailing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 315:25–33Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Larsen P, Elsoe R, Hansen SH, Graven-Nielsen T, Laessoe U, Rasmussen SB (2015) Incidence and epidemiology of tibial shaft fractures. Injury 46(4):746–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Im GI, Tae SK (2005) Distal metaphyseal fractures of tibia: a prospective randomized trial of closed reduction and intramedullary nail versus open reduction and plate and screws fixation. J Trauma 59:1219–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vallier HA, Le TT, Bedi A (2008) Radiographic and clinical comparisons of distal tibia shaft fractures: plating versus intramedullary nailing. J Orthop Trauma 22:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mioc ML, Prejbeanu R, Deleanu B, Anglitoiu B, Haragus H, Niculescu M (2018) Extra-articular distal tibia fractures controversies regarding treatment options. A single-centre prospective comparative study. Int Orthop 42(4):915–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ebraheim NA, Evans B, Liu X, Tanios M, Gillette M, Liu J (2017) Comparison of intramedullary nail, plate, and external fixation in the treatment of distal tibia nonunions. Int Orthop 41(9):1925–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain D, Selhi HS, Yamin M, Mahindra P (2017) Soft tissue complications in distal tibial fractures managed with medial locking plates: a myth or reality? J Clin Orthop Trauma 8(Suppl 2):S90–S95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li Y, Liu L, Tang X, Pei F, Wang G, Fang Y, Zhang H, Crook N (2012) Comparison of low, multidirectional locked nailing and plating in the treatment of distal tibial metadiaphyseal fractures. Int Orthop 36:1457–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costa ML, Achten J, Griffin J, Petrou S, Pallister I, Lamb SE, Parsons NR, FixDT Trial Investigators (2017) Effect of locking plate fixation vs intramedullary nail fixation on 6-month disability among adults with displaced fracture of the distal tibia: the UK FixDT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1767–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zou J, Zhang W, Zhang CQ (2013) Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis with open reduction and internal fixation for treatment of extra-articular distal tibia fractures. Injury 44:1102–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng W, Li Y, Manyi W (2011) Comparison study of two surgical options for distal tibia fracture-minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis vs. open reduction and internal fixation. Int Orthop 35:737–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janssen KW, Biert J, van Kampen A (2007) Treatment of distal tibial fractures: plate versus nail: a retrospective outcome analysis of matched pairs of patients. Int Orthop 31(5):709–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vallier HA, Cureton BA, Patterson BM (2011) Randomized, prospective comparison of plate vs intramedullary nail fixation for distal tibia shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 25(12):736–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo JJ, Tang N, Yang HL, Tang TS (2010) A prospective, randomized trial comparing closed intramedullary nailing with percutaneous plating in the treatment of distal metaphyseal fractures of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 92:984–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Polat A, Kose O, Canbora K, Yanık S, Guler F (2015) Intramedullary nailing vs minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for distal extra-articular tibial fractures: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Orthop Sci 20:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fang JH, Wu YS, Guo XS, Sun LJ (2016) Comparison of 3 minimally invasive methods for distal tibia fractures. Orthopedics 39:627–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li Y, Jiang X, Guo Q, Zhu L, Ye T, Chen A (2014) Treatment of distal tibial shaft fractures by 3 different surgical methods: a randomized, prospective study. Int Orthop 38:1261–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maredza M, Petrou S, Dritsaki M, Achten J, Griffin J, Lamb SE, Parsons NR, Costa ML (2018) A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of intramedullary nail fixation and locking plate fixation in the treatment of adult patients with an extra-articular fracture of the distal tibia. Bone Joint J 100(5):624–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor BC, Hartley BR, Formaini N, Bramwell TJ (2015) Necessity for fibular fixation associated with distal tibia fractures. Injury 46:2438–2442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torino D, Mehta S (2016) Fibular fixation in distal tibia fractures: reduction aid or nonunion generator? J Orthop Trauma 30(Suppl 4):S22–S25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berlusconi M, Busnelli L, Chiodini F, Portinaro N (2014) To fix or not to fix? The role of fibular fixation in distal shaft fractures of the leg. Injury 45(2):408–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schemitsch EH, Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Sanders DW, Swiontkowski M, Tornetta P, Walter SD, Zdero R, SPRINT Investigators (2012) Prognostic factors for predicting outcomes after intramedullary nailing of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Vaienti
    • 1
  • Paolo Schiavi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesco Ceccarelli
    • 1
  • Francesco Pogliacomi
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopedic ClinicUniversity Hospital of ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations