| Literature DB >> 28188548 |
Rasmus Elsoe1, Søren Kold2, Peter Larsen3, Juozas Petruskevicius2.
Abstract
The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes for patients with complex tibial fractures treated with a ring fixator. The secondary aim was to analyse the variables affecting patient-reported outcomes and time to union. Fifty-six patients participated in the study. The mean age at the time of fracture was 56.5 years (range 30-86). All fractures united during the study period. The ring fixator was removed at an average of 25.3 weeks (range 9-53). During treatment, the function and QOL increased with time. Compared with an established reference population, the study population showed a significantly worse EQ5D-5L index both throughout the treatment period and 8 weeks after frame removal. 18% of patients reported mild to severe depression 8 weeks after frame removal.Entities:
Keywords: Complex fracture tibial bone; Ilizarov; Pilon fracture; Plateau fracture; Ring fixator; Short-term outcome
Year: 2017 PMID: 28188548 PMCID: PMC5360674 DOI: 10.1007/s11751-017-0275-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr ISSN: 1828-8928
Fig. 1Patient recruitment flow
Baseline characteristics
| Age at time of fracture, mean (range) | 56.5 (30–82) |
| Gender male/female | 24/32 |
| Smoker yes/no | 37/19 |
| Side of injury, right/left/bilateral | 27/27/2 |
| High-/low-energy trauma | 19/37 |
| Comorbidities | |
| ASA score, mean(SD) | 1.8 (0.7) |
| Charlson comobidity score, mean(SD) | 2.9 (1.9) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 8 |
| Fracture classification | |
| AO-41 | 29 |
| AO-42 | 7 |
| AO-43 | 20 |
| Open/closed fracture | 9/47 |
| Complications | |
| Pin site infection, number of patients | 33 |
| Pin or wire infection treated in hospital | 1 |
| Pin or wire infection treated with peros antibiotics | 32 |
| Pin or wire exchange during treatment period | 12 |
Fig. 3Patient-reported MDI scores from surgery to frame removal
Fig. 2a Patient reported outcome, proximal tibial fractures (AO 41-), patient-reported outcome from surgery to frame removal, proximal tibial fractures. b Patient reported outcome, tibial shaft fractures (AO 42-), patient-reported outcome from surgery to frame removal, tibial shaft fractures. c Patient reported outcome, distal tibial fractures (AO 43-), patient-reported outcome from surgery to frame removal, distal tibial fractures
Patient-reported outcome 8 weeks after frame removal compared with reference populations
| KOOS | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAIN | ADL | SYMP | QOL | SPORT | ||||||
| Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | |
| Proximal fracture (AO 41-) | ||||||||||
| Study population | 65.6 | 56.1–75.2* | 69.8 | 58.6–81.0* | 54.5 | 44.3–64.6* | 48 | 38.1–57.8* | 8.6 | 17.3–39.8* |
| Reference population**,*** | 86.7–88.2 | 86.5–88.1 | 85.4–86.9 | 77.4–79.6 | 72.5–75.1 | |||||
* Significantly different compared with reference population
** Paradowski PT et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord, 200618
*** Unpublished data. Ewa Roos ‘Personal communication’ Nov 13, 2 01 2. Paradowski et al. 2006
**** Sorensen J et al. Scand. J. Public Health, 200916
Observed deformities, depressions and condylar widening
| Varus deformity measured in ° | Valgus deformity measured in ° | Flexion deformity measured in ° | Extension deformity measured in ° | Depression AP mm | Depression lateral mm | Condylar widening mm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proximal | |||||||
| Patient ID | |||||||
| 2 | 5 | 3 | |||||
| 11 | 10 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 3 | 8 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 17 | 6 | 3 | 10 | ||||
| 34 | 6 | 2 | 8 | ||||
| 39 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | |||
| 46 | 4 | ||||||
| 52 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| 55 | 4 | 1 |
Eight weeks after frame removal, the radiological assessments were made on AP and side X-rays. Proximal tibial fractures were evaluated concerning alignment and depression of the articular surface and condylar widening as described by Rasmussen et al. [22]. Shaft fractures were evaluated concerning alignment. Distal fractures were evaluated with regard to alignment, talar subluxation, central depression and mortise widening as described by Ramos et al. [2] Furthermore, an assessment of the postoperative reduction for distal fractures was performed as described by March and co-workers [23], modified by Burwell & Charnley [24]
Variables affecting time to union and patient-reported outcome
| Time to union | EQ5D-5L | |
|---|---|---|
| Age |
|
|
| BMI |
|
|
| Smoking |
|
|
| Charlson comorbidity |
|
|
| Pin/wire infection |
|
|
| High-/low-energy trauma |
|
|
b = regression coefficient
Bold represents statistically significant difference