Literature DB >> 18839377

Current management of tibial shaft fractures: a survey of 450 Canadian orthopedic trauma surgeons.

Jason W Busse1, Emily Morton, Christina Lacchetti, Gordon H Guyatt, Mohit Bhandari.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Strategies to manage tibial fractures include nonoperative and operative approaches. Strategies to enhance healing include a variety of bone stimulators. It is not known what forms of management for tibial fractures predominate among Canadian orthopedic surgeons. We therefore asked a representative sample of orthopedic trauma surgeons about their management of tibial fracture patients.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of 450 Canadian orthopedic trauma surgeons. We inquired about demographic variables and current tibial shaft fracture management strategies.
RESULTS: 268 surgeons completed the survey, a response rate of 60%. Most respondents (80%) managed closed tibial shaft fracture operatively; 47% preferred reamed intramedullary nailing and 40% preferred unreamed. For open tibial shaft fractures, 59% of surgeons preferred reamed intramedullary nailing. Some surgeons (16%) reported use of bone stimulators for management of uncomplicated open and closed tibial shaft fractures, and almost half (45%) made use of this adjunctive modality for complicated tibial shaft fractures. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and electrical stimulation proved equally popular (21% each) and 80% of respondents felt that a reduction in healing time of 6 weeks or more, attributed to a bone stimulator, would be clinically important.
INTERPRETATION: Current practice regarding orthopedic management of tibial shaft fractures in Canada strongly favors operative treatment with intramedullary nailing, although respondents were divided in their preference for reamed and unreamed nailing. Use of bone stimulators is common as an adjunctive modality in this injury population. Large randomized trials are needed to provide better evidence to guide clinical decision making regarding the choice of reamed or unreamed nailing for tibial shaft fractures, and to inform surgeons about the actual effect of bone stimulators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18839377     DOI: 10.1080/17453670810016722

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop        ISSN: 1745-3674            Impact factor:   3.717


  29 in total

1.  Comparison of low, multidirectional locked nailing and plating in the treatment of distal tibial metadiaphyseal fractures.

Authors:  Yong Li; Lei Liu; Xin Tang; Fuxing Pei; Guanglin Wang; Yue Fang; Hui Zhang; Nicolas Crook
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Cochrane in CORR ®: Intramedullary Nailing for Tibial Shaft Fractures in Adults (Review).

Authors:  Herman Johal; Mohit Bhandari; Paul Tornetta
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Cochrane in CORR (®): Ultrasound and Shockwave Therapy for Acute Fractures in Adults (Review).

Authors:  Ilyas S Aleem; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shanil Ebrahim; Brent Mollon; Sheena Bance; Jason W Busse; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  Reaming Does Not Affect Functional Outcomes After Open and Closed Tibial Shaft Fractures: The Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Carol A Lin; Marc Swiontkowski; Mohit Bhandari; Stephen D Walter; Emil H Schemitsch; David Sanders; Paul Tornetta
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.512

6.  [Reamed intramedullary nailing].

Authors:  U Pfister
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of open and closed tibial fractures: a subgroup analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Deting Xue; Qiang Zheng; Hang Li; Shengjun Qian; Bo Zhang; Zhijun Pan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Electromagnetic stimulation as coadjuvant in the healing of diaphyseal femoral fractures: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alfredo Martinez-Rondanelli; Juan Pablo Martinez; María E Moncada; Eliana Manzi; Carlos Rafael Pinedo; Hector Cadavid
Journal:  Colomb Med (Cali)       Date:  2014-06-30

9.  Bone stimulators: Beyond the black box.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Anil K Jain
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  Bone stimulation for fracture healing: What's all the fuss?

Authors:  Galkowski Victoria; Brad Petrisor; Brian Drew; David Dick
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.