Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of three different approaches for anterior knee pain after tibia intramedullary nailing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare anterior knee pain and functional outcomes in patients who underwent intramedullary tibial nailing using transpatellar, medial parapatellar or suprapatellar nail entry methods.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent tibial fracture repair in our clinic between January 2010 and March 2017. After applying the exclusion criteria, 58 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the nailing approach: medial parapatellar, transpatellar or suprapatellar. Age, body mass index, follow-up duration, Kujala Score, Lysholm Knee Score, anterior knee pain, length of hospitalization and surgical duration were assessed.

Results

Of the 58 patients studied, 21 underwent a transpatellar (TP) approach, 16 a medial parapatellar (MP) approach, and 21 a suprapatellar (SP) approach. The mean Kujala Score of patients who had the TP approach was 80 ± 7.15 (72–93) and the average Lysholm Knee Score was 80.23 ± 8.74 (70–95). There was no statistically significant difference between Kujala Scores (p = 0.38) or Lysholm Knee Scores (p 0.06) among the groups; similarly, no statistically significant difference was found among the three groups in terms of anterior knee pain, length of hospitalization or surgical duration (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The suprapatellar tibia nailing method is as safe and reliable as transpatellar and medial parapatellar methods in terms of effect on postoperative anterior knee pain and functional outcomes.

Level of evidence

Level 3 case–control study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bone LB, Johnson KD. Treatment of tibial fractures by reaming and intramedullary nailing. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1986;68:877–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hofmann A, Dietz SO, Pairon P, et al. The role of intramedullary nailing in treatment of open fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;41(1):39–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Keating JF, Orfaly R, O’Brien PJ. Knee pain after tibial nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11(1):10–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Oh CW, Song HR, Roh JY. Bone transport over an intramedullary nail for reconstruction of long bone defects in tibia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128(8):801–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Franke J, Homeier A, Metz L, et al (2017) Infrapatellar vs. suprapatellar approach to obtain an optimal insertion angle for intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0881-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yavuz U, Sökücü S, Demir B, et al. (2014) Comparison of intramedullary nail and plate fixation in distal tibia diaphyseal fractures close to the mortise. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 20(3):189–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Turkmen I, Saglam Y, Turkmensoy F, et al. Influence of sagittal plane malpositioning of the patella on anterior knee pain after tibia intramedullary nailing. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(1):133–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zelle BA, Boni G. Safe surgical technique: intramedullary nail fixation of tibial shaft fractures. Patient Saf Surg. 2015;9:40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kujala UM, Jaakkola LH, Koskinen SK, et al. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy. 1993;9:159–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10(3):150–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zelle BA. Intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures in the semi-extended position using a suprapatellar portal technique. Int Orthop. 2017;41(9):1909–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hernigou P, Cohen DJ. Proximal entry for intramedullary nailing of the tibia: the risk of unrecognised articular damage. Bone Jt Surg Br. 2000;82(1):33–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Uzümcügil O, Doğan A, Yalçinkaya M, et al. The relationship between anterior knee pain occurring after tibial intramedullary nailing and the localization of the nail in the proximal tibia. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2009;43:386–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Morandi M, Banka T, Gaiarsa GP, et al. Intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures: review of surgical techniques and description of a percutaneous lateral suprapatellar approach. Orthopedics. 2010;33:172–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weil YA, Gardner MJ, Boraiah S. Anterior knee pain following the lateral parapatellar approach for tibial nailing. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(6):773–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jakma T, Reynders-Frederix P, Rajmohan R. Insertion of intramedullary nails from the suprapatellar pouch for proximal tibia shaft fractures. A technical note. Acta Orthop Belg. 2011;77:834–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sanders RW, DiPasquale TG, Jordan CJ, et al. Semiextended intramedullary nailing of the tibia using a suprapatellar approach: radiographic results and clinical outcomes at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones M, Parry M, Whitehouse M, et al. Radiological outcome and patient reported function following intramedullary nailing: a comparison of the retropatellar and infrapatellar approach. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(5):256–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gelbke MK, Coombs D, Powell S, et al. Suprapatellar versus infra-patellar intramedullary nail insertion of the tibia: a cadaveric model for comparison of patellofemoral contact pressures and forces. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(11):665–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Courtney PM, Boniello A, Donegan D, et al. (2015) Functıonal knee outcomes in infrapatellar and suprapatellar tibial nailing: does approach matter. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 44(12):E513–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gaines RJ, Rockwood J, Garland J, et al. (2013) Comparison of insertional trauma between suprapatellar and infrapatellar portals for tibial nailing. Orthopedics. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130821-17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang C, Chen E, Ye C. Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach for tibia intramedullary nailing: a meta analysis. Int J Surg. 2018;51:133–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sun Q, Nie X, Gong J. The outcome comparison of the suprapatellar approach and infrapatellar approach for tibia intramedullary nailing. Int Orthop. 2016;40(12):2611–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan DS, Serrano-Riera R, Griffing R. Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar tibial nail insertion: a prospective randomized control pilot study. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(3):130–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitchell PM, Weisenthal BM, Collinge CA. No incidence of postoperative knee sepsis with suprapatellar nailing of open tibia fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(2):85–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leary J, Werger M, Sagebien CA. Novel technique for percutaneous removal of a suprapatellar intramedullary nail. Am J Orthop. 2013;42(3):136–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, SBU Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Elmalikent mh, Umraniye, 34764, Istanbul, Turkey

    Cagri Ozcan & Ismail Turkmen

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Istanbul Aydın University Medical Park Florya Hospital, Akasya Sk, Kucukcekmece, 34295, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sami Sokucu

Authors
  1. Cagri Ozcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismail Turkmen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sami Sokucu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cagri Ozcan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. No benefits have been or will be received from a commercial party related directed or indirectly to the subject matter of this article.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. This study had an ethical committee approval from the local institution (no:00067797623).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozcan, C., Turkmen, I. & Sokucu, S. Comparison of three different approaches for anterior knee pain after tibia intramedullary nailing. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 46, 99–105 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-018-0988-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-018-0988-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation