To compare the role of hybrid external fixation and MIPO in management of proximal tibial fracture

Abstract BackgroundGood clinical outcomes for locking plates as an external fixator to treat tibial fractures have been reported. However, external locking plate fixation is still generally rarely performed. This study aimed to compare the stability of external locking plate fixator with that of conventional external fixator for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures, using finite element analysis. MethodsThree models were constructed: (1) external locking plating of proximal tibial fracture with lateral proximal tibial locking plate and 5-mm screws (ELP), (2) conventional external fixation of proximal tibial fracture with an 11-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-11), and (3) conventional external fixation of proximal tibial fracture with a 7-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-7). The stress distribution, displacement at the fracture gap, and stiffness of the three finite element models at 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-mm plate–rod offset from the lateral surface of the lateral condyle of the tibia were determined. ResultsThe conventional external fixator showed higher stiffness than did the external locking plate fixator. In all models, the stiffness decreased as the distance of the plate–rod from the bone surface increased. The maximum stiffness was 121.06 N/mm in the EF-11 model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the EF-7 model group, the maximum stiffness was 40.00 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the ELP model group, the maximum stiffness was 35.79 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–plate offsetConclusionsExternal locking plate fixation is more flexible than conventional external fixation, which can influence secondary bone healing. External locking plate fixation requires the placement of the plate as close as possible to the skin, which allow low-profile design, because the increased distance of the plate from bone can be too flexible for bone healing.

Download Full-text

External Fixation using external Fixation plate in proximal tibial fracture

Al-Azhar International Medical Journal ◽

10.21608/aimj.2021.60672.1411 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 0 (0) ◽

pp. 0-0

Author(s):

wael Abd Elraheem ◽

kamal elrhman ◽

Ahmed Akar

Keyword(s):

External Fixation ◽

Tibial Fracture ◽

Proximal Tibial Fracture ◽

Fixation Plate

Download Full-text

Comparison between external locking plate fixation and conventional external fixation for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures: a finite element analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research ◽

10.1186/s13018-021-02907-3 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Dejan Blažević ◽

Janoš Kodvanj ◽

Petra Adamović ◽

Dinko Vidović ◽

Zlatko Trobonjača ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Finite Element Analysis ◽

Finite Element ◽

External Fixation ◽

Tibial Fracture ◽

Locking Plate ◽

Plate Fixation ◽

Proximal Tibial Fracture ◽

Locking Plate Fixation ◽

Element Analysis ◽

Maximum Stiffness

Abstract Background Good clinical outcomes for locking plates as an external fixator to treat tibial fractures have been reported. However, external locking plate fixation is still generally rarely performed. This study aimed to compare the stability of an external locking plate fixator with that of a conventional external fixator for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures using finite element analysis. Methods Three models were constructed: (1) external locking plate fixation of proximal tibial fracture with lateral proximal tibial locking plate and 5-mm screws (ELP), (2) conventional external fixation of proximal tibial fracture with an 11-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-11), and (3) conventional external fixation of a proximal tibial fracture with a 7-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-7). The stress distribution, displacement at the fracture gap, and stiffness of the three finite element models at 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-mm plate–rod offsets from the lateral surface of the lateral condyle of the tibia were determined. Results The conventional external fixator showed higher stiffness than the external locking plate fixator. In all models, the stiffness decreased as the distance of the plate–rod from the bone surface increased. The maximum stiffness was 121.06 N/mm in the EF-11 model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the EF-7 model group, the maximum stiffness was 40.00 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–rod offset. In the ELP model group, the maximum stiffness was 35.79 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia–plate offset. Conclusions Finite element analysis indicated that external locking plate fixation is more flexible than conventional external fixation and can influence secondary bone healing. External locking plate fixation requires the placement of the plate as close as possible to the skin, which allows for a low-profile design because the increased distance from the plate to the bone can be too flexible for bone healing. Further experimental mechanical model tests are necessary to validate these finite element models, and further biological analysis is necessary to evaluate the effect of external locking plate fixation on fracture healing.

Download Full-text

Patients with complex proximal tibial fractures overestimate the prognosis of their injury

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery ◽

10.1007/s00068-021-01644-w ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Lena Keppler ◽

Alexander Martin Keppler ◽

Christoph Ihle ◽

Philipp Minzlaff ◽

Julian Fürmetz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Return To Work ◽

Tibial Fracture ◽

Knee Function ◽

Physical Work ◽

Return To Sports ◽

Work Intensity ◽

Proximal Tibial Fracture ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Patient Comprehension ◽

Group B

Abstract Purpose To investigate, if patients with complex proximal tibial fracture have realistic expectations on open reduction and internal fixation. Methods 114 patients (mean 49 years, SD ± 13) with closed AO-type B and C proximal tibial fracture were grouped (group B, respectively C). Prior to surgery expectations concerning knee function, pain, return to work/sports, and the risk for osteoarthritis was assessed with the Hospital for Special Surgery-Knee Surgery Expectations Survey (HFSS-KSE) and a non-validated ten-item survey. Results 92% of patients expected at least an almost natural knee postoperatively. All items regarding restoring knee function were ranked to be at least important in both groups. 65% in group B and 47% in group C expected at most occasional pain. 83% in group B and 67% in group C expected full return to work without any limitations. Patients with low physical work intensity expected significantly shorter incapacity to work in both groups (7.8, respectively 8.9 weeks). 71% in group B and 60% in group C expected to return to sports with at most small limitations. 33% in group B and 22% in group C assumed risk for osteoarthritis will be prevented by surgery. Conclusion Expectations on surgery for complex proximal tibial fracture are high regardless of fracture type. The prognosis of many health and lifestyle domains was overestimated. The risk for osteoarthritis was underestimated. This study should sensitize surgeons to discuss realistic expectations. This may help to improve patient comprehension what leads to sensible expectations, resulting in improved patients´ satisfaction. Level of evidence IV. Trial registration number 14104, Date of registration: 06/2015.

Download Full-text

Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study

Pilot and Feasibility Studies ◽

10.1186/s40814-021-00821-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Caroline B. Hing ◽

Elizabeth Tutton ◽

Toby O. Smith ◽

Molly Glaze ◽

Jamie R. Stokes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mixed Methods ◽

External Fixation ◽

Intramedullary Nailing ◽

Feasibility Study ◽

Online Survey ◽

Tibial Fracture ◽

Tibial Fractures ◽

Circular Frame ◽

Pilot Rct ◽

Randomised Controlled

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

Download Full-text