Advertisement

Painful locking screws with tibial nailing, an underestimated complication

  • Philip BeakEmail author
  • Shyam Moudhgalya
  • Thomas Anderson
  • Caroline B. Hing
Original Article • LOWER LIMB - FRACTURES
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Tibial fractures represent approximately 3–4% of reported fractures. Locked, intramedullary nails are commonly used to restore length and alignment and provide rotational stability. Few studies have assessed the complication rate of locking screws.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study of all patients who underwent tibial nailing at our institution between the 01/01/15 and 30/06/17. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year post-operatively. For inclusion, patients had to be over 16 years of age and had undergone tibial nail fixation following a traumatic fracture. Post-operative radiographs were used to assess the configuration and features of locking screws.

Results

One hundred and twenty-six individuals underwent tibial nailing over the 30-month period, with 95 followed up at least 1 year. Twenty-seven per cent of individuals reported pain attributed to locking screws at follow-up. Upon radiographic assessment, no significant difference was seen between symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts in terms of proud screw heads proximally (7% vs 5%, p > 0.99) or distally (14% vs 17%, p > 0.99), long screw tips proximally (52% vs 48%, p = 0.81) or distally (51% vs 50%, p > 0.99), or tibiofibular joint penetration proximally (31% vs 23%, p = 0.60). However, there was a higher incidence of distal tibiofibular joint penetration in symptomatic versus asymptomatic individuals (4% vs 25%, p = 0.025).

Conclusion

Twenty-seven per cent of patients with a tibial nail report painful locking screws. Patients with symptomatic distal locking screws had a higher incidence of radiographic distal tibiofibular joint penetration.

Keywords

Tibial fractures Surgery Fracture fixation Intramedullary Complications Intramedullary nailing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

CB Hing reports personal fees from Elsevier, Grants from Orthopaedic Research UK, Grants from Arthrex, Grants from Stryker, Grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Larsen P, Elsoe R, Hansen SH et al (2015) Incidence and epidemiology of tibial shaft fractures. Injury 46:746–750.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.12.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meling T, Harboe K, Søreide K (2009) Incidence of traumatic long-bone fractures requiring in-hospital management: a prospective age- and gender-specific analysis of 4890 fractures. Injury 40:1212–1219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.06.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whittle AP (2017) A century of tibial intramedullary nailing. Curr Orthop Pract 1.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000000586
  4. 4.
    Klemm K, Schellmann WD (1972) Dynamic and static locking of the intramedullary nail. Monatsschr Unfallheilkd Versicher Versorg Verkehrsmed 75:568–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kempf I, Grosse A, Lafforgue D (1978) Combined Kuntscher nailing and screw fixation (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 64:635–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhandari M, Guyatt G, Walter SD et al (2008) Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. J Bone Jt Surg-Am 90:2567–2578.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henley MB, Meier M, Tencer AF (1993) Influences of some design parameters on the biomechanics of the unreamed tibial intramedullary nail. J Orthop Trauma 7:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanders RW, DiPasquale TG, Jordan CJ et al (2014) Semiextended intramedullary nailing of the tibia using a suprapatellar approach. J Orthop Trauma 28:S29–S39.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bot.0000452787.80923.ee CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lefaivre KA, Guy P, Chan H, Blachut PA (2008) Long-term follow-up of tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. J Orthop Trauma 22:525–529.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e318180e646 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laidlaw MS, Ehmer N, Matityahu A (2010) Proximal tibiofibular joint pain after insertion of a tibial intramedullary nail: two case reports with accompanying computed tomography and cadaveric studies. J Orthop Trauma 24:e58–e64.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181b80278 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Labronici PJ, Santos Pires RE, Franco JS et al (2011) Recommendations for avoiding knee pain after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. Patient Saf Surg 5:31.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-5-31 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cain ME, Doornberg JN, Duit R, et al (2018) High incidence of screw penetration in the proximal and distal tibiofibular joints after intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures—a prospective cohort and mapping study. Injury.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.02.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    (2017) British orthopaedic association and British association of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons—Audit Standards for TraumaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whelan DB, Bhandari M, Stephen D et al (2010) Development of the radiographic union score for tibial fractures for the assessment of tibial fracture healing after intramedullary fixation. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 68:629–632.  https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a7c16d CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Trauma and OrthopaedicsSt George’s Hospital, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.St George’s, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations