scholarly journals Comparison of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approaches of intramedullary nailing for distal tibia fractures

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Lu ◽  
Gen Wang ◽  
Bin Hu ◽  
Cheng Ren ◽  
Liang Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
Closed Reduction ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Reduction Technique ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Tibia Fractures ◽  
Distal Tibia Fractures

Abstract Background This study aimed to analyze and compare the clinical and functional outcomes of distal tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) using the suprapatellar (SP) and infrapatellar (IP) surgical approaches. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed in 63 patients with distal fractures that were treated with IMN between August 2014 and August 2018. A total of 27 and 36 patients underwent IMN using the SP and IP techniques, respectively. The surgical time, blood loss, closed reduction rate, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, fracture healing time, and complications were reviewed in this study. Anterior knee pain was assessed using the visual analog scale. The Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale were used as clinical measurements. Results A total of 63 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were evaluated. The average surgical time, blood loss, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, closed reduction rate, fracture healing time, and Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale score were insignificantly different (P > 0.05) between the two groups. However, the SP approach was superior to the IP approach in terms of pain score, AOFAS score, and fracture deformity rate (P < 0.05). Conclusions In the treatment of distal tibia fractures, the SP IMN technique is associated with a significantly higher functional outcome, lower knee pain, and lower rate of fracture deformity than the IP IMN technique.

scholarly journals Comparison of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approaches of intramedullary nailing for distal tibia fractures

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Lu ◽  
Gen Wang ◽  
Bin Hu ◽  
Cheng Ren ◽  
Liang Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
Closed Reduction ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Reduction Technique ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Tibia Fractures ◽  
Distal Tibia Fractures

Abstract Background: This study aimed to analyze and compare the clinical and functional outcomes of distal tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) using the suprapatellar (SP) and infrapatellar (IP) surgical approaches. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 63 patients with distal fractures that were treated with IMN between August 2014 and August 2018. A total of 27 and 36 patients underwent IMN using the SP and IP techniques, respectively. The surgical time, blood loss, closed reduction rate, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, fracture healing time, and complications were reviewed in this study. Anterior knee pain was assessed using the visual analog scale. The Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale were used as clinical measurements. Results: A total of 63 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were evaluated. The average surgical time, blood loss, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, closed reduction rate, fracture healing time, and Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale score were insignificantly different (P>0.05) between the two groups. However, the SP approach was superior to the IP approach in terms of pain score, AOFAS score, and fracture deformity rate (P<0.05). Conclusions: In the treatment of distal tibia fractures, the SP IMN technique is associated with a significantly higher functional outcome, lower knee pain, and lower rate of fracture deformity than the IP IMN technique.

scholarly journals Comparison of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approaches of intramedullary nailing for distal tibia fractures

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Lu ◽  
Gen Wang ◽  
Bin Hu ◽  
Cheng Ren ◽  
Liang Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
Closed Reduction ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Reduction Technique ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Tibia Fractures ◽  
Distal Tibia Fractures

Abstract Background: This study aimed to analyze and compare the clinical and functional outcomes of distal tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) using the suprapatellar (SP) and infrapatellar (IP) surgical approaches.Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 63 patients with distal fractures that were treated with IMN between August 2014 and August 2018. A total of 27 and 36 patients underwent IMN using the SP and IP techniques, respectively. The surgical time, blood loss, closed reduction rate, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, fracture healing time, and complications were reviewed in this study. Anterior knee pain was assessed using the visual analog scale. The Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale were used as clinical measurements.Results: A total of 63 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were evaluated. The average surgical time, blood loss, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, closed reduction rate, fracture healing time, and Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale score were insignificantly different (P>0.05) between the two groups. However, the SP approach was superior to the IP approach in terms of pain score, AOFAS score, and fracture deformity rate (P<0.05).Conclusions: In the treatment of distal tibia fractures, the SP IMN technique is associated with a significantly higher functional outcome, lower knee pain, and lower rate of fracture deformity than the IP IMN technique.

scholarly journals Comparison of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approaches of intramedullary nailing for distal tibia fractures

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Lu ◽  
Gen Wang ◽  
Bin Hu ◽  
Cheng Ren ◽  
Liang Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
Closed Reduction ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Reduction Technique ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Tibia Fractures ◽  
Distal Tibia Fractures

Abstract Background: This study aimed to analyze and compare the clinical and functional outcomes of distal tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) using the suprapatellar (SP) and infrapatellar (IP) surgical approaches.Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 63 patients with distal fractures that were treated with IMN between August 2014 and August 2018. A total of 27 and 36 patients underwent IMN using the SP and IP techniques, respectively. The surgical time, blood loss, closed reduction rate, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, fracture healing time, and complications were reviewed in this study. Anterior knee pain was assessed using the visual analog scale. The Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale were used as clinical measurements.Results: A total of 63 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were evaluated. The average surgical time, blood loss, rate of adjuvant reduction technique, closed reduction rate, fracture healing time, and Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale score were insignificantly different (P>0.05) between the two groups. However, the SP approach was superior to the IP approach in terms of pain score, AOFAS score, and fracture deformity rate (P<0.05).Conclusions: In the treatment of distal tibia fractures, the SP IMN technique is associated with a significantly higher functional outcome, lower knee pain, and lower rate of fracture deformity than the IP IMN technique.

scholarly journals Benefit of lag screw placement by a single- or two-screw nailing system in elderly patients with AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 030006052110037
Author(s):  
Fulong Zhao ◽  
Lijuan Guo ◽  
Xuefei Wang ◽  
Yakui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Trochanteric Fractures ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Gamma3 Nail ◽  
Intertan Nail

Objective To retrospectively analyze the clinical outcomes of two intramedullary fixation devices, the INTERTAN nail and Gamma3 nail, for treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Methods In total, 165 elderly patients underwent treatment for AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures in our hospital from June 2017 to June 2018 (INTERTAN group, n = 79; Gamma3 group, n = 86). All patients underwent radiological and clinical investigations and were followed up for an average of 12 months. Age, sex, fracture type, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results The surgical time was significantly shorter and the intraoperative blood loss volume was significantly lower in the Gamma3 than INTERTAN group (58.2 ± 2.5 vs. 81.7 ± 14.2 minutes and 170 ± 29 vs. 220 ± 16 mL, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the reduction quality, hospital stay, fracture healing time, Harris hip score, postoperative complications, or 1-year postoperative mortality. Conclusion Both INTERTAN and Gamma3 nails may be effective for surgical treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures in elderly patients. However, the Gamma3 nail was superior to the INTERTAN nail in terms of surgical time and intraoperative blood loss.

scholarly journals External fixator combined with three different fixation methods of fibula for treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
DongDong Sun ◽  
Dan Lv ◽  
Kun Zhou ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
Li-Lan Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Open Fractures ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Ankle Function

Abstract Background To compare the efficacy of three different fixation methods of fibula combined with external fixation of tibia for the treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula. Methods From January 2017 to July 2019, 91 cases of open fractures of distal tibia and fibula were treated with external fixator, and the fibula was fixed with non-fixation (group A, n=35), plate-screw (group B, n=30) and Kirschner wire(group C, n=26).The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical and implants costs, fracture healing time, postoperative complications, and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle surgery (AOFAS) scores were compared among the groups. Results Four patients were lost to follow-up, and 87 patients were followed up for 5-35 months (average, 14.2 months). The operation time of group C(114.92±36.09min) was shorter than that of group A (142.27±47.05min) and group B(184.00±48.56min) (P<0.05). There was no difference in intraoperative blood loss among the three groups (P>0.05). The surgical and implants costs in group C (5.24±1.21, thousand dollars) is lower than that in group A (6.48±1.11, thousand dollars) and group B (9.37±2.16, thousand dollars) (P < 0.05).The fracture healing time of group C(5.67±1.42months) was significantly less than that of group A (6.90±1.33months) and group B(6.70±1.12months) (P<0.05). The postoperative complications such as fractures delayed union and nonunion in group C (2 cases, 8.00%) is less than that in group A (13 cases, 39.39%) and group B (11cases, 37.93%) (P<0.05). The wound infection and needle-tract infection did not differ among the three groups (P>0.05). The excellent or good rate of ankle function was 69.70% in group A, 72.41% in group B and 84.00% in group C, with no statistical difference among the three groups (P>0.05). conclusion Compared with simple external fixator fixation and external fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis, external fixator combined with K-wire intramedullary fixation shortens the operative time and fracture healing time, reduced costs and complications of fracture healing, while the blood loss, infection complications and ankle function recovery showed no difference with the other two groups. External fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis had no advantage in treating extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula when compared with simple external fixation.

scholarly journals External fixator combined with three different fixation methods of fibula for treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
DongDong Sun ◽  
Dan Lv ◽  
Kun Zhou ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
Li-Lan Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Open Fractures ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Ankle Function

Abstract Background To compare the efficacy of three different fixation methods of fibula combined with external fixation of tibia for the treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula. Methods From January 2017 to July 2019, 91 cases of open fractures of distal tibia and fibula were treated with external fixator, and the fibula was fixed with non-fixation (group A, n=35), plate-screw (group B, n=30) and Kirschner wire(group C, n=26).The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical and implants costs, fracture healing time, postoperative complications, and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle surgery (AOFAS) scores were compared among the groups. Results Four patients were lost to follow-up, and 87 patients were followed up for 5-35 months (average, 14.2 months). The operation time of group C(114.92±36.09min) was shorter than that of group A (142.27±47.05min) and group B(184.00±48.56min) (P<0.05). There was no difference in intraoperative blood loss among the three groups (P>0.05). The surgical and implants costs in group C (5.24±1.21, thousand dollars) is lower than that in group A (6.48±1.11, thousand dollars) and group B (9.37±2.16, thousand dollars) (P < 0.05).The fracture healing time of group C(5.67±1.42months) was significantly less than that of group A (6.90±1.33months) and group B(6.70±1.12months) (P<0.05). The postoperative complications such as fractures delayed union and nonunion in group C (2 cases, 8.00%) is less than that in group A (13 cases, 39.39%) and group B (11cases, 37.93%) (P<0.05). The wound infection and needle-tract infection did not differ among the three groups (P>0.05). The excellent or good rate of ankle function was 69.70% in group A, 72.41% in group B and 84.00% in group C, with no statistical difference among the three groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with simple external fixator fixation and external fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis, external fixator combined with K-wire intramedullary fixation shortens the operative time and fracture healing time, reduced costs and complications of fracture healing, while the blood loss, infection complications and ankle function recovery showed no difference with the other two groups. External fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis had no advantage in treating extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula when compared with simple external fixation.Fund program: National Natural Science Foundation of China (11572222)

scholarly journals External fixator combined with three different fixation methods of fibula for treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
DongDong Sun ◽  
Dan Lv ◽  
Kun Zhou ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
Li-Lan Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Open Fractures ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Ankle Function

Abstract PurposeTo compare the efficacy of three different fixation methods of fibula combined with external fixation of tibia for the treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula.MethodsFrom January 2017 to July 2019, 91 cases of open fractures of distal tibia and fibula were treated with external fixator, and the fibula was fixed with non-fixation (group A, n = 35), plate-screw (group B, n = 30) and kirschner wire(group C, n = 26).The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical and implants costs, fracture healing time, postoperative complications, and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle surgery (AOFAS) scores were compared among the groups.ResultsFour patients were lost to follow-up, and 87 patients were followed up for 5–35 months (average, 14.2 months). The operation time of group C(114.92 ± 36.09 min) was shorter than that of group A (142.27 ± 47.05 min) and group B(184.00 ± 48.56 min) (P < 0.05). There was no difference in intraoperative blood loss among the three groups (P > 0.05). The surgical and implants costs in group C (5.24 ± 1.21, thousand dollars) is lower than that in group A (6.48 ± 1.11, thousand dollars) and group B (9.37 ± 2.16, thousand dollars) (P < 0.05).The fracture healing time of group C(5.67 ± 1.42months) was significantly less than that of group A (6.90 ± 1.33months) and group B(6.70 ± 1.12months) (P < 0.05). The postoperative complications such as fractures delayed union and nonunion in group C (2 cases, 8.00%) is less than that in group A (13 cases, 39.39%) and group B (11cases, 37.93%) (P < 0.05). The wound infection and needle-tract infection did not differ among the three groups (P > 0.05). The excellent or good rate of ankle function was 69.70% in group A, 72.41% in group B and 84.00% in group C, with no statistical difference among the three groups (P > 0.05).conclusionCompared with simple external fixator fixation and external fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis, external fixator combined with K-wire intramedullary fixation shorten the operative time and fracture healing time, reduced costs and complications of fracture healing, while the blood loss, infection complications and ankle function recovery showed no difference with the other two groups. External fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis had no advantage in treating extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula when compared with simple external fixation.Fund program: National Natural Science Foundation of China (11572222)

scholarly journals External fixator combined with three different fixation methods of fibula for treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula: a retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong-Dong Sun ◽  
Dan Lv ◽  
Kun Zhou ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
Li-Lan Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Fracture Healing ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Open Fractures ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Ankle Function

Abstract Background To compare the efficacy of three different fixation methods of fibula combined with external fixation of tibia for the treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula. Methods From January 2017 to July 2019, 91 cases of open fractures of distal tibia and fibula were treated with external fixator, and the fibula was fixed with non-fixation (group A, n = 35), plate-screw (group B, n = 30) and Kirschner wire (group C, n = 26). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical and implants costs, fracture healing time, postoperative complications, and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle surgery (AOFAS) scores were compared among the groups. Results Four patients were lost to follow-up, and 87 patients were followed up for 5–35 months (average, 14.2 months). The operation time of group C (114.92 ± 36.09 min) was shorter than that of group A (142.27 ± 47.05 min) and group B (184.00 ± 48.56 min) (P < 0.05). There was no difference in intraoperative blood loss among the three groups (P > 0.05). The surgical and implants costs in group C (5.24 ± 1.21, thousand dollars) is lower than that in group A (6.48 ± 1.11, thousand dollars) and group B (9.37 ± 2.16, thousand dollars) (P < 0.05). The fracture healing time of group C (5.67 ± 1.42 months) was significantly less than that of group A (6.90 ± 1.33 months) and group B (6.70 ± 1.12 months) (P < 0.05). The postoperative complications such as fractures delayed union and nonunion in group C (2 cases, 8.00%) is less than that in group A (13 cases, 39.39%) and group B (11cases, 37.93%) (P < 0.05). The wound infection and needle-tract infection did not differ among the three groups (P > 0.05). The excellent or good rate of ankle function was 69.70% in group A, 72.41% in group B and 84.00% in group C, with no statistical difference among the three groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion Compared with simple external fixator fixation and external fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis, external fixator combined with K-wire intramedullary fixation shortens the operative time and fracture healing time, reduced costs and complications of fracture healing, while the blood loss, infection complications and ankle function recovery showed no difference with the other two groups. External fixator combined with plate-screw osteosynthesis had no advantage in treating extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula when compared with simple external fixation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document