| Literature DB >> 23327492 |
Telmo Ramos1, Jón Karlsson, Bengt I Eriksson, Lars Nistor.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of displaced distal tibial fractures is still controversial. The different internal fixation techniques are often burdened by relatively high complication rates. Minimally invasive techniques with ring fixators have been introduced as an alternative allowing immediate reduction and stabilization, avoiding a staged protocol. The aim of this prospective study was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcome the Ilizarov technique in patients with distal metaphyseal tibial fractures, with or without intra-articular involvement.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23327492 PMCID: PMC3626620 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-30
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Injury type, treatment and pin infections in 39 patients with distal tibia fractures treated with the Ilizarov application
| 1 | 20 | fall | low | A2 | | | | 117 | | 4 | | 2 | III + III |
| 2 | 62 | fall | low | C1 | I | | | 109 | | 4 | | 1 | II |
| 3 | 57 | riding | high | C1 | I | 2 | | 58 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 4 | 59 | fall | low | A2 | | | 1 | 136 | | 4 | | 1 | II |
| 5 | 39 | traffic | high | C2 | II | | | 66 | | 4 | yes | 0 | |
| 6 | 55 | work | low | A2 | | | | 152 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 7 | 56 | fall | low | A2 | | | | 118 | | 4 | | 1 | II |
| 8 | 39 | fall | low | C1 | II | | | 122 | | 4 | | 2 | III |
| 9 | 33 | traffic | high | A3 | | 1 | | 75 | | 4 | | 1 | II |
| 10 | 59 | fall | low | C1 | I | | | 85 | | 4 | | 2 | III + III |
| 11 | 70 | fall | low | A2 | | | | 172 | | 4 | | 1 | II |
| 12 | 61 | work | low | C1 | I | | 1 | 123 | | 4 | | 1 | II |
| 13 | 58 | fall | low | A3 | | | 1 | 126 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 14 | 50 | fall | high | C2 | II | 1 | | 83 | 12 × 5 | 4 | | 1 | III |
| 15 | 46 | fall | low | A1 | | 1 | | 107 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 16 | 43 | fall | low | C1 | I | | | 168 | | 4 | | 3 | II + II + III |
| 17 | 29 | traffic | high | A3 | | 1 | | 241 | | 5 | | 1 | II |
| 18 | 50 | trafic | high | C2 | II | 2 | | 61 | | 4 | yes | 1 | II |
| 19 | 46 | fall | low | C1 | I | | | 176 | | 4 | | 3 | II + III + VI |
| 20 | 39 | fall | low | A2 | | | | 172 | | 4 | | 1 | II |
| 21 | 63 | fall | low | A2 | | | | 127 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 22 | 42 | fall | low | A2 | | 1 | | 195 | | 5 | | 2 | II + II |
| 23 | 21 | fall | low | A2 | | | | 93 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 24 | 42 | fall | low | C3 | III | 1 | | 59 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 25 | 66 | fall | high | C3 | III | | | 76 | 16 × 15 | 3 | yes | 0 | |
| 26 | 51 | fall | low | C1 | I | 2 | | 147 | | 4 | | 1 | III |
| 27 | 62 | fall | low | C3 | III | | | 143 | | 4 | yes | 2 | II + III |
| 28 | 54 | traffic | high | A2 | | | | 176 | | 4 | | 2 | II + II |
| 29 | 54 | fall | low | C1 | I | | | 158 | | 4 | | 2 | II + III |
| 30 | 68 | fall | low | A2 | | | | 167 | | 4 | | 3 | II + III + IV |
| 31 | 56 | fall | low | A1 | | | | 133 | | 4 | | 2 | II + III |
| 32 | 43 | skiing | low | A3 | | | | 250 | | 4 | yes | 2 | II + III |
| 33 | 44 | skiing | low | A1 | | | | 152 | | 4 | | 2 | II + III |
| 34 | 48 | fall | low | C1 | I | | | 127 | | 4 | | 2 | II + III |
| 35 | 56 | traffic | high | C1 | I | | 1 | 137 | | 4 | | 1 | III |
| 36 | 24 | fall | high | C1 | II | | | 147 | 8 × 5 | 4 | yes | 1 | III |
| 37 | 42 | fall | low | A1 | | | | 273 | | 4 | | 0 | |
| 38 | 70 | fall | low | A3 | | | | 110 | | 4 | yes | 0 | |
| 39 | 49 | fall | low | A1 | 143 | 4 | 0 |
Timing of the treatment
| | ||||
| Surgery delay (days) | 2 | (0–24) | 1 | (0–5) |
| Operation time (min) | 152 | (50–224) | 165 | (72–314) |
| Hospital stay (days) | 5 | (3–10) | 5 | (2–7) |
| External fixation (weeks) | 17 | (12–30) | 15 | (11–22) |
Range of motion at one year (median and range)
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ankle dorsiflexion | 20° | (0-50°) | 18° | (0-50°) | 21° | (10-29°) | 17° | (4-26°) |
| Ankle plantarflexion | 38° | (12-55°) | 30° | (11-52°) | 33° | (16-56°) | 19° | (4-48°) |
The radiological outcome in the Burwell and Charnley classification analyzed with FAOS and VAS satisfaction in both groups at the one-year control
| 2 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 9 | | | 5 | fair | | | | | | 0 |
| 3 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | | | 7 | fair | 100 | 93 | 100 | 100 | 94 | 7 |
| 5 | C2 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 8 | | | 4 | fair | 72 | 21 | 93 | 35 | 38 | 18 |
| 8 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 3 | | | | good | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 38 |
| 10 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | 10 | 10 | | poor | | | | | | 8 |
| 12 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 11 | | 2 | | poor | 72 | 89 | 90 | 60 | 75 | 31 |
| 14 | C2 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 8 | | | | fair | 92 | 86 | 100 | 100 | 94 | 10 |
| 16 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | | | | good | 47 | 64 | 68 | 20 | 44 | 27 |
| 18 | C2 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | | | | good | 61 | 75 | 85 | 35 | 56 | 7 |
| 19 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | 3 | | 7 | fair | 33 | 61 | 85 | 40 | 63 | 49 |
| 24 | C3 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | 9 | 6 | | fair | 33 | 14 | 71 | 0 | 19 | 54 |
| 25 | C3 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | 12 | | 3 | poor | 31 | 21 | 60 | 5 | 0 | 47 |
| 26 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 6 | | 3 | | fair | 39 | 64 | 72 | 5 | 75 | 76 |
| 27 | C3 | 9 | 6 | 5 | | 16 | | 1 | poor | 94 | 57 | 97 | 70 | 63 | 7 |
| 29 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | | 2 | | good | 94 | 93 | 97 | 85 | 88 | 7 |
| 34 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 8 | | 2 | | fair | 67 | 54 | 85 | 40 | 31 | 41 |
| 35 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | 1 | | | 4 | good | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 94 | 0 |
| 36 | C1 | <2 | <0.5 | <0.5 | | | | | good | 89 | 54 | 100 | 70 | 56 | 2 |
| | | | | ||||||||||||
| 1 | A2 | | | | | | 7 | | fair | | | | | | 0 |
| 4 | A2 | | | | | 4 | | 8 | fair | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 18 |
| 6 | A2 | | | | | 8 | 1 | | fair | 83 | 68 | 93 | 70 | 75 | 0 |
| 7 | A2 | | | | | | | 8 | fair | | | | | | 26 |
| 9 | A3 | | | | | 5 | 5 | | fair | | | | | | 0 |
| 11 | A2 | | | | | 2 | | | good | 100 | 100 | 97 | 90 | 81 | 0 |
| 13 | A3 | | | | | 5 | 4 | | fair | 97 | 86 | 96 | 100 | 88 | 38 |
| 15 | A1 | | | | 5 | | 8 | | fair | 100 | 86 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| 17 | A3 | | | | | 4 | 2 | | fair | 100 | 93 | 99 | 95 | 100 | 0 |
| 20 | A2 | | | | | | | | good | | | | | | 54 |
| 21 | A2 | | | | 6 | | 4 | | fair | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 7 |
| 22 | A2 | | | | | 1 | | 2 | good | 67 | 36 | 81 | 25 | 44 | 30 |
| 23 | A2 | | | | | | 5 | | fair | | | | | | 0 |
| 28 | A2 | | | | 8 | | | | fair | 81 | 75 | 94 | 60 | 56 | 47 |
| 30 | A2 | | | | 2 | | | 1 | good | 78 | 71 | 87 | 40 | 63 | 17 |
| 31 | A1 | | | | | 5 | | | fair | 75 | 54 | 81 | 90 | 38 | 22 |
| 32 | A3 | | | | | | | 12 | poor | 64 | 57 | 79 | 20 | 38 | 11 |
| 33 | A1 | | | | | 2 | | 2 | good | 81 | 64 | 97 | 90 | 69 | 3 |
| 37 | A1 | | | | 1 | | 2 | | good | 100 | 86 | 100 | 80 | 69 | 4 |
| 38 | A3 | | | | | | 2 | | fair | 100 | 93 | 100 | 85 | 100 | 0 |
| 39 | A1 | 1 | 2 | good | 100 | 93 | 100 | 95 | 88 | 7 | |||||
Outcomes at one year in patients with at least one parameter poor in the Burwell and Charnley classification (B&C) and/or with pin-tract infection
| 10 | C1 | Poor | No | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | 8 |
| 12 | C1 | Poor | No | 0.727 | 72 | 89 | 90 | 60 | 75 | 31 |
| 19 | C1 | Fair | Yes | 0.656 | 33 | 61 | 85 | 40 | 63 | 49 |
| 25 | C3 | Poor | No | 0.620 | 31 | 21 | 60 | 5 | 0 | 47 |
| 27 | C3 | Poor | No | 0.125 | 94 | 57 | 97 | 70 | 63 | 7 |
| 30 | A2 | Good | Yes | 0.796 | 78 | 71 | 87 | 40 | 63 | 17 |
| 32 | A3 | Poor | No | 0.767 | 64 | 57 | 79 | 20 | 38 | 11 |
Self-appraisal scores (median and range)
| 4 weeks | 27 | (7–63) | 28 | (8–58) | |
| 12 weeks | 29 | (3–56) | 26 | (0–78) | |
| 1 year | 7 | (0–54) | 14 | (0–76) | |
| At FAOS | 6.5 | (0–67) | 7.5 | (0–49) | |
| 4 weeks | 14 | (1–29) | 9 | (7–47) | |
| 12 weeks | 24 | (0–52) | 14 | (3–35) | |
| 1 year | 8 | (0–61) | 20 | (0–53) | |
| At FAOS | 6.5 | 0(0–67) | 7.5 | (0–49) | |
| 4 weeks | 20.2 | (4.9-83.3) | 12.4 | (0–48.6) | |
| 12 weeks | 16.8 | (0–69.8) | 15.4 | (0.-48.7) | |
| 1 year | 1.8 | (0–76.3) | 2.7 | (0–39.8) | |
| At FAOS | 1.8 | (0–65) | 4.1 | (0–54) | |
| 4 weeks | 0.62 | (−0.07-0.88) | 0.52 | (0.15-0.73) | |
| 12 weeks | 0.69 | (0.19-1.0) | 0.62 | (0.02-0.73) | |
| 1 year | 1.0 | (0.29-1.0) | 0.80 | (0.20-1.0) | |
| At FAOS | 0.93 | (0.66-1.0) | 0.80 | (0-36-1.0) | |
Figure 1The FAOS subscores from the present trial compared with ankle ligament reconstruction, trimalleolar and distal fibular fractures[42],[45],[46].