Qi Sun1, XiaoYang Nie1, JinPeng Gong1, JieZhou Wu1, RenLong Li1, Wei Ge1, Ming Cai2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200072, China. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200072, China. cmdoctor@tongji.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper aimed to compare the outcome of suprapatellar and infrapatellar approaches for the tibia intramedullary nailing. METHODS:From February 2010 to August 2013, a total of 162 skeletally mature participants with tibia shaft fractures were identified and divided into suprapatellar approach group (SPAG) and infrapatellar approach group (IPAG) randomly. Fluoroscopy time, length of hospital stay, operative time, blood loss and complications were recorded. Visual analog score (VAS), Lysholm knee score and range of motion (ROM) were reviewed at one, three, six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. All patients were required to complete short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) at six, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The follow-ups lasted two years at least. No significant differences were in major complication rate, operation time, blood loss, the ROM of injured extremity and length ofhospital stay between SPAG and IPAG. Nevertheless, the fluoroscopy time was significantly lower in SPAG. VAS pain scores were lower in SPAG at six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. A higher Lysholm knee score was observed in SPAG at six and 24 months post-operatively. Besides, a better overall physical components score was observed in SPAG except at six months post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: The suprapatellar approach was superior to infrapatrellar approach for the treatment of tibia shaft fracture. Therefore, we recommend the suprapatellar approach as a preferable approach in tibia intramedullary nailing.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This paper aimed to compare the outcome of suprapatellar and infrapatellar approaches for the tibia intramedullary nailing. METHODS: From February 2010 to August 2013, a total of 162 skeletally mature participants with tibia shaft fractures were identified and divided into suprapatellar approach group (SPAG) and infrapatellar approach group (IPAG) randomly. Fluoroscopy time, length of hospital stay, operative time, blood loss and complications were recorded. Visual analog score (VAS), Lysholm knee score and range of motion (ROM) were reviewed at one, three, six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. All patients were required to complete short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) at six, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The follow-ups lasted two years at least. No significant differences were in major complication rate, operation time, blood loss, the ROM of injured extremity and length of hospital stay between SPAG and IPAG. Nevertheless, the fluoroscopy time was significantly lower in SPAG. VASpain scores were lower in SPAG at six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. A higher Lysholm knee score was observed in SPAG at six and 24 months post-operatively. Besides, a better overall physical components score was observed in SPAG except at six months post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: The suprapatellar approach was superior to infrapatrellar approach for the treatment of tibia shaft fracture. Therefore, we recommend the suprapatellar approach as a preferable approach in tibia intramedullary nailing.
Authors: Arash Moghaddam-Alvandi; Gerald Zimmermann; Kathrin Hammer; Thomas Bruckner; Paul Alfred Grützner; Jan von Recum Journal: Injury Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Fábio Lucas Rodrigues; Luiz Carlos de Abreu; Vitor Engrácia Valenti; Andre Lage Valente; Rafael da Costa Pereira Cestari; Pedro Henrique Isoldi Pohl; Luciano Miller Reis Rodrigues Journal: Injury Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; Michael Zlowodzki; Paul Tornetta; Andrew Schmidt; David C Templeman Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; Gordon Guyatt; Paul Tornetta; Emil Schemitsch; Marc Swiontkowski; David Sanders; Stephen D Walter Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2008-06-23 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Andreas Fontalis; Simon Weil; Michael Williamson; James Houston; Tamer Ads; Alex Trompeter Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2021-01-08
Authors: Akshar H Patel; J Heath Wilder; Olivia C Lee; Austin J Ross; Krishna C Vemulapalli; Paul B Gladden; Murphy P Martin; William F Sherman Journal: Orthop Rev (Pavia) Date: 2022-01-30
Authors: Mandala S Leliveld; Michael H J Verhofstad; Eduard Van Bodegraven; Jules Van Haaren; Esther M M Van Lieshout Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Nils Jan Bleeker; Inge H F Reininga; Bryan J M van de Wall; Laurent A M Hendrickx; Frank J P Beeres; Kaj Ten Duis; Job N Doornberg; Ruurd L Jaarsma; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Frank F A IJpma Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 2.512