Clamp external fixator for IIIb open tibial shaft fracture

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 557
Author(s):  
Jeung Tak Suh ◽  
Byung Guk Park ◽  
Chong Il Yoo
Keyword(s):  
External Fixator ◽  
Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Shaft

scholarly journals Proximal peroneal artery traumatic pseudoaneurysm following a compound proximal tibial shaft fracture managed with an external fixator: A case report

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-92
Author(s):  
Malinda Rasith Ileperuma ◽  
Badra Hewavithana
Keyword(s):  
External Fixator ◽  
Rare Complication ◽  
Shaft Fracture ◽  
Sudden Onset ◽  
Peroneal Artery ◽  
Tibial Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Shaft ◽  
Artery Pseudoaneurysm ◽  
Initial Injury ◽  
High Index Of Suspicion

A case of post-traumatic proximal peroneal artery pseudoaneurysm following a proximal tibial shaft fracture, complicated by acute compartment syndrome, fixed using an external fixator, in a 22-year-old female is presented. She was investigated for sudden-onset bleeding from the external fixator pin site, 6 weeks after the initial injury, was anaemic and diagnosed with a pseudoaneurysm at lower limb angiography. Contrast leak from the site of pseudoaneurysm was noted and open surgery with ligation of the pseudoaneurysm was performed. This rare complication of a proximal tibial shaft fracture has to be considered in patients presenting with acute bleeding from the surgical site or from pin sites after a significant lag period and requires a high index of suspicion.

scholarly journals Operative Choice for Open Tibial Shaft Fracture in Children: A Comparative Study of External Fixator Vs. Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nail

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Hong ◽  
Saroj Rai ◽  
Xin Tang ◽  
Ruikang Liu ◽  
Jin Li
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Intramedullary Nail ◽  
Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Fractures ◽  
Tibial Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Shaft ◽  
Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nail ◽  
Open Tibial Fractures ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract IntroductionExternal fixator (EF) is a preferred choice for open tibial fractures, but pin tract infection (PTI) and refracture are common complications. Elastic stable intramedullary nail (ESIN) has been reported in the treatment for open tibial fractures. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of EF vs. ESIN in the treatment for open tibial shaft fracture in children retrospectively.Material and methodsPatients aged 5-11 years old with Gustilo-Anderson II and IIIA tibial shaft fracture treated at our institute from January 2008 to January 2018 were reviewed retrospectively and categorized into EF (n = 55) and ESIN (n = 37) group. Patients with pathological fracture, neuromuscular disorder, metabolic disease, previous tibial fracture or instrumentation, and polytrauma were excluded. Patients with follow up less than 24 months or incomplete medical records were also excluded. ResultsIn all, fifty-five patients (33 males, 22 females) were included in the EF group, whereas 37 patients (21 males, 16 females) were included in the ESIN group. There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning sex, age, body weight, duration from injury to surgery, Gustilo-Anderson (GA) classification, and concomitant injuries. There was no patient of nonunion and malunion in either group. The incidence of implant prominence was higher in the ESIN group (16%) than those in the EF group (0), P < 0.001. The angulation was higher in the EF group than ESIN group in coronal and sagittal plane, P < 0.001. The radiological union was faster in the ESIN group (7.0 ± 0.9, weeks) than those in the EF group (9.0 ± 2.2), P < 0.001. Limb length discrepancy (LLD) was significantly longer in the EF group (12.1 ± 4.4, mm) than those in the ESIN group (7.3 ± 4.3, mm), P < 0.001. ConclusionESIN is a viable option in selected patients of GA grade II and IIIA open tibial fractures with comparable clinical outcomes as external fixator, but with less complications including superficial infection, residual angulation and refracture after hardware removal.

Reamed versus Unreamed Intramedullary Nailing after External Fixator Application in the Treatment of Open Tibial-Shaft Fracture

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 272
Author(s):  
Dong Bae Shin ◽  
Joon Cheol Choi ◽  
Young Soo Lee ◽  
Yong Jeng Kim ◽  
Soo Hong Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intramedullary Nailing ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Shaft

scholarly journals External fixation versus elastic stable intramedullary nailing in the treatment of open tibial shaft fractures in children

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Hong ◽  
Saroj Rai ◽  
Xin Tang ◽  
Ruikang Liu ◽  
Jin Li
Keyword(s):  
Tract Infection ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
External Fixator ◽  
Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Fractures ◽  
Tibial Shaft Fracture ◽  
Tibial Shaft ◽  
Open Tibial Fractures ◽  
Pin Tract Infection

Abstract Introduction External fixator (EF) is a popular choice for open tibial fractures, but pin tract infection (PTI) and refracture are common complications. Elastic stable intramedullary nail (ESIN) has been reported in the treatment for open tibial fractures. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of EF vs. ESIN in the treatment for open tibial shaft fracture in children retrospectively. Methods Patients aged 5–11 years with Gustilo-Anderson II and IIIA tibial shaft fracture treated at our institute from January 2008 to January 2018 were reviewed retrospectively and categorized into EF and ESIN groups. Patients with pathological fracture, neuromuscular disorder, metabolic disease, previous tibial fracture or instrumentation, and polytrauma were excluded. Patients with follow-up < 24 months or incomplete medical records were also excluded. Results In all, 55 patients (33 males, 22 females) were included in the EF group, whereas 37 patients (21 males, 16 females) were included in the ESIN group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups concerning sex, age, body weight, duration from injury to surgery, Gustilo-Anderson (GA) classification, and concomitant injuries. There was no case of nonunion and malunion in either group. The angulation at the latest follow-up was higher in the EF group than the ESIN group (P < 0.01). The radiological union was faster in the ESIN group (7.0 ± 0.9 weeks) than those in the EF group (9.0 ± 2.2 weeks) (P < 0.01). Limb length discrepancy (LLD) was more in the EF group (12.1 ± 4.4, mm) than in the ESIN group (7.3 ± 4.3, mm) (P < 0.01). Conclusion ESIN is a viable option in selected patients of GA grade II and IIIA open tibial fractures with comparable clinical outcomes as external fixator. Pin tract infection is the most troublesome complication in the EF group while implant prominence is a nuisance in the ESIN group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document