scholarly journals Fixation of adolescent diaphyseal tibial fractures with flexible intramedullary nailing

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-194
Author(s):  
Mohamed Ahmed ◽  
Ashraf Ahmed ◽  
abdelrahman khalifa
2020 ◽  
pp. 145749692095862
Author(s):  
S. Widbom-Kolhanen ◽  
I. Helenius

Purpose: To describe patient characteristics and to compare outcomes of children undergoing rigid intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures as compared with those operated on using elastic intramedullary nailing. Methods: A retrospective review of 26 children who have undergone flexible intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures and 30 children with rigid nailing at our university hospital between 2008 and 2017. The patient charts and radiographs were evaluated to identify demographic characteristics and several variables were measured preoperatively, as well as 6–12 weeks postoperatively in addition to final follow-up radiographs. Results: Twenty-six patients (26/26, 100%) treated with a flexible nail and 14 patients (14/30, 46.7%) treated with a rigid nail had open proximal tibial physis (p < 0.001). An acceptable postoperative alignment was obtained in 20 patients (20/26, 76.9%) in the elastic stable intramedullary nail group and in 29 patients (29/30, 96.7%) in the rigid group (p = 0.026). Some complications occurred in four patients (4/26, 15%) in the elastic stable intramedullary nail population and seven patients (7/30, 23%) in the rigid intramedullary nail population (p = 0.46). Malunion occurred in six patients (6/26, 23%) in the elastic stable intramedullary nail group and in none of the patients treated with a rigid intramedullary nail (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Younger children with tibial fractures who weight 50 kg or less and with proximal tibial growth plates wide open can be treated with elastic stable intramedullary nail while more mature adolescents benefit from rigid intramedullary nailing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 3455-3457
Author(s):  
Malik M. Yasin Awan ◽  
Mudassar Nazar ◽  
Abdul Qayyum Baig ◽  
Rizwan Anwar ◽  
Muhammad Abdul Hanan ◽  
...  

Objective: To compare the clinical outcome of flexible intramedullary nailing (FIN) with external fixator in pediatric open tibial fractures. Subjects and Methods: In this randomized comparative study, 80 children having age 5 year to 14 years who presented with open tibial fractures were included. The study was conducted from June-2020 to June-2021 in Islam Hospital Sialkot and Allama Iqbal Memorial Hospital Sialkot. Patients were divided into two equal groups. Group A: underwent external fixation and group B: underwent flexible intramedullary nailing for the surgical management of tibial fractures. Frequency of infections surrounding pins, painful bursitis and re fracture rate within 3 months after surgery was recorded. Results: The mean age of children was 8.42±3.82 years in external fixator group versus 8.40±4.0 years in FIN group (p-value 0.97). Infection-surrounding pins occurred in 9 (22.5%) children were belonging to external fixator group and 01 (2.5%) children was belonging to FIN group (p-value 0.007). Refracture occurred in 6 (15.0%) patients in external fixator group and in no (0.0%) children in FIN group (p-value 0.01). Painful bursitis occurred 2 (5.0%) patient was in external fixator group and in 13 (32.5%) in FIN group (p-value 0.002). Conclusion: Clinical outcome is better in patients treated with FIN as compared to the external fixator for the treatment of pediatric open tibial shaft fractures. Keywords: Flexible intramedullary nails, External fixator, Tibial fractures.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e0030-e0030
Author(s):  
Jung-Mo Hwang ◽  
Chan Kang ◽  
Deuk-Soo Hwang ◽  
Gi-Soo Lee ◽  
Jeong-Kil Lee ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline B. Hing ◽  
Elizabeth Tutton ◽  
Toby O. Smith ◽  
Molly Glaze ◽  
Jamie R. Stokes ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Segmental tibial fractures are fractures in two or more areas of the tibial diaphysis resulting in a separate intercalary segment of the bone. Surgical fixation is recommended for patients with segmental tibial fractures as non-operative treatment outcomes are poor. The most common surgical interventions are intramedullary nailing (IMN) and circular frame external fixation (CFEF), but evidence about which is better is of poor quality. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine optimum treatment is required. STIFF-F aimed to assess the feasibility of a multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF for segmental tibial fracture. Methods STIFF-F was a mixed-methods feasibility study comprising a pilot RCT conducted at six UK Major Trauma Centres, qualitative interviews drawing on Phenomenology and an online survey of rehabilitation. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. Patients, 16 years and over, with a segmental tibial fracture (open or closed) deemed suitable for IMN or CFEF were eligible to participate. Randomisation was stratified by site using random permuted blocks of varying sizes. Participant or assessor blinding was not possible. Interviews were undertaken with patients about their experience of injury, treatment, recovery and participation. Staff were interviewed to identify contextual factors affecting trial processes, their experience of recruitment and the treatment pathway. An online survey was developed to understand the rehabilitation context of the treatments. Results Eleven patients were screened and three recruited to the pilot RCT. Nineteen staff and four patients participated in interviews, and 11 physiotherapists responded to the survey. This study found the following: (i) segmental tibial fractures were rarer than anticipated, (ii) the complexity of the injury, study setup times and surgeon treatment preferences impeded recruitment, (iii) recovery from a segmental tibial fracture is challenging, and rehabilitation protocols are inconsistent and (iv) despite the difficulty recruiting, staff valued this research question and strived to find a way forward. Conclusion The proposed multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF is not feasible. This study highlighted the difficulty of recruiting patients to an RCT of a complex rare injury over a short time period. Trial registration The study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry: ISRCTN11229660


2019 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Spencer M. Richardson ◽  
J. Houston Dove ◽  
James H. Beaty ◽  
Benjamin W. Sheffer ◽  
David D. Spence ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunil G Kulkarni ◽  
Ankit Varshneya ◽  
Shreenath Kulkarni ◽  
Govind S Kulkarni ◽  
Milind G Kulkarni ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document