Petros Z Stavrou1, Vincenzo Ciriello1, Stylianos Theocharakis1, Suribabu Gudipati1, Theodoros H Tosounidis2, Nikolaos K Kanakaris1, Peter V Giannoudis3. 1. Academic department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 2. Academic department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK. 3. Academic department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Unit, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK. Electronic address: p.giannoudi@aol.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to identify the prevalence and the risk factors for re-interventions following reamed intramedullary nailing (IMN) of tibial shaft fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed a prospectively populated data of adult patients that underwent reamed intramedullary nailing for stabilization of tibial shaft fractures over a period of three years. Exclusion criteria were immature patients, pathological and periarticular fractures. Data collected included patient demographics, mechanism of injury, open or closed injury pattern, ISS, perioperative complications, reintervention characteristics (time, cause, number), smoking habits, medical co-morbidities and progress to radiological fracture union. Fractures were classified according to AO/OTA system. The cohort of these patients was divided in two groups: Group 1 included the patients who healed uneventfully and Group 2 included the patients who underwent a re-intervention for the healing of the fracture. A logistic regression analysis model was used to assess the odds ratio (OR) of identified risk factors predicting the necessity of re-interventions. RESULTS: 181 (129 male) patients with a mean age of 37 (range 16-87) met the inclusion criteria. 30 patients were excluded due to inadequate follow up, leaving 151 patients for the study group. 119 patients were included in Group 1. 32 (21.2%) patients who had at least one re-intervention (range 1-3) were included in Group 2. The most common causes for re-intervention were aseptic non-union (31.3%) and removal of implants due to soft tissue irritation/anterior knee pain (31.3%), followed by early metalwork failure (12.5%), infected non-union (9.4%), correction of rotational deformities (9.4%) and canal intramedullary sepsis with evident fracture healing (6.3%). 29 (25.8%) from the study cohort patients sustained an open fracture and 8 of them underwent a re-intervention (20.5% of interventions). Incidence of fracture pattern 42-B, C was statistically significant greater in the reintervention (40.6%) compared to the non-re-intervention group (23.53%) (p = 0.026). Risk factors predicting the need for re-interventions included the type of fracture B, C (p = 0.026 OR: 2.528, range: 1.117-5.721) and increased alcohol consumption (p = 0.027/OR: 2.618, range: 1.116-6.141). CONCLUSION: Fracture pattern and alcohol abuse were highly predictive for re-interventions following reamed IM nailing for stabilization of acute tibial shaft fractures.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to identify the prevalence and the risk factors for re-interventions following reamed intramedullary nailing (IMN) of tibial shaft fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed a prospectively populated data of adult patients that underwent reamed intramedullary nailing for stabilization of tibial shaft fractures over a period of three years. Exclusion criteria were immature patients, pathological and periarticular fractures. Data collected included patient demographics, mechanism of injury, open or closed injury pattern, ISS, perioperative complications, reintervention characteristics (time, cause, number), smoking habits, medical co-morbidities and progress to radiological fracture union. Fractures were classified according to AO/OTA system. The cohort of these patients was divided in two groups: Group 1 included the patients who healed uneventfully and Group 2 included the patients who underwent a re-intervention for the healing of the fracture. A logistic regression analysis model was used to assess the odds ratio (OR) of identified risk factors predicting the necessity of re-interventions. RESULTS: 181 (129 male) patients with a mean age of 37 (range 16-87) met the inclusion criteria. 30 patients were excluded due to inadequate follow up, leaving 151 patients for the study group. 119 patients were included in Group 1. 32 (21.2%) patients who had at least one re-intervention (range 1-3) were included in Group 2. The most common causes for re-intervention were aseptic non-union (31.3%) and removal of implants due to soft tissue irritation/anterior knee pain (31.3%), followed by early metalwork failure (12.5%), infected non-union (9.4%), correction of rotational deformities (9.4%) and canal intramedullary sepsis with evident fracture healing (6.3%). 29 (25.8%) from the study cohort patients sustained an open fracture and 8 of them underwent a re-intervention (20.5% of interventions). Incidence of fracture pattern 42-B, C was statistically significant greater in the reintervention (40.6%) compared to the non-re-intervention group (23.53%) (p = 0.026). Risk factors predicting the need for re-interventions included the type of fracture B, C (p = 0.026 OR: 2.528, range: 1.117-5.721) and increased alcohol consumption (p = 0.027/OR: 2.618, range: 1.116-6.141). CONCLUSION:Fracture pattern and alcohol abuse were highly predictive for re-interventions following reamed IM nailing for stabilization of acute tibial shaft fractures.
Authors: Laurent A M Hendrickx; James Virgin; Job N Doornberg; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Ruurd L Jaarsma Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2020-07-12