| Literature DB >> 28604652 |
Lin Liu1, Xian Xu1, Xu Li1, Wei Wu1, Junfeng Cai1, Qingyou Lu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This prospective study aimed to compare clinical effects of intramedullary nailing guided by digital and conventional technologies in treatment of tibial fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-two patients (mean age 43 years, 18 males and 14 females) who were treated for tibial fractures from October 2010 to October 2012 were enrolled. They were sequentially randomized to receive intramedullary nailing guided by either digital technology (digital group, n=16) or conventional technology (conventional group, n=16). The operation time, fluoroscopy times, fracture healing time, distance between the actual and planned insertion point, postoperative lower limb alignment, and functional recovery were recorded for all patients. RESULTS The mean operation time in the digital group was 43.1±6.2 min compared with 48.7±8.3 min for the conventional technology (P=0.039). The fluoroscopy times and distance between the actual and planned insertion point were significantly lower in the digital group than in the conventional group (both P<0.001). The accuracy rate of the insertion point was 99.12% by digital technology. No difference was found in fracture healing time and good postoperative lower limb alignment between the digital and conventional groups (P=0.083 and P=0.310), as well as the effective rate (100% vs. 87.50%, P=0.144). CONCLUSIONS Intramedullary nailing guided by digital technology has many advantages in treatment of tibial fractures compared to conventional technology, including shorter operation time, reduced fluoroscopy times, and decreased distance between the actual and planned insertion point of the intramedullary nail.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28604652 PMCID: PMC5478299 DOI: 10.12659/msm.902261
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
The demographic and clinical data of patients with tibial fractures.
| Parameter | Conventional group (n=16) | Digital group (n=16) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years (range) | 42±2.5 (19–65) | 43±3.1 (22–69) | 0.323 |
| Gender | >0.999 | ||
| Male, n (%) | 9 (56.3) | 9 (56.3) | |
| Female, n (%) | 7 (43.7) | 7 (43.7) | |
| Causes of fracture, n (%) | 0.909 | ||
| Road traffic accidents | 11 (68.75) | 10 (62.5) | |
| Falling down | 3 (18.75) | 4 (25) | |
| Other accidents | 2 (12.5) | 2 (12.5) | |
| AO classification, n (%) | 0.997 | ||
| A2 | 3 (18.75) | 3 (18.75) | |
| A3 | 2 (12.5) | 3 (18.75) | |
| B1 | 4 (25) | 4 (25) | |
| B2 | 5 (31.25) | 4 (25) | |
| C1 | 1 (6.25) | 1 (6.25) | |
| C2 | 1 (6.25) | 1 (6.25) | |
| Affected side, n (%) | 0.723 | ||
| Left | 9 (56.3) | 8 (50) | |
| Right | 7 (43.7) | 8 (50) |
P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 1High-speed multislice computed tomography (CT) images of the affected and healthy tibias.
Figure 2Preoperative simulation of intramedullary nailing at imaging workstation. (A) Simulated implantation of intramedullary nail; (B) Simulated insertion point of intramedullary nail; (C) Maximum length of intramedullary nail; (D) Maximum diameter of intramedullary nail; (E) The distance between the insertion point and the line from the tibial tubercle perpendicular to the tibial plateau.
The intraoperative and postoperative data of patients with tibial fractures.
| Parameter | Conventional group (n=16) | Digital group (n=16) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time, min | 48.7±8.3 | 43.1±6.2 | 0.039 |
| Fluoroscopy times | 11±2.6 | 5±0.4 | <0.001 |
| Distance between the actual and planned insertion point, mm | 4.3±0.7 | 1.4±0.2 | <0.001 |
| Fracture healing, weeks | 16.7±2.4 | 15.5±1.1 | 0.083 |
| Good postoperative lower limb alignment, n (%) | 15 (93.8) | 16 (100) | 0.310 |
P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
The Johner-Wruh score of patients with tibial fractures at postoperative 1 year.
| Data | Conventional group (n=16) | Digital group (n=16) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
| Non-union, osteomyelitis, amputation | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Neurovascular injury | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Deformity | ||||||||
| Varus/valgus | 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Anteversion/recurvation | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rotation | 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shortening | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Range of motion | ||||||||
| Knee joint | 9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Ankle joint | 11 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Subtalar joint | 11 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Pain | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Gait | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Weight-bearing ability | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
According to the Johner-Wruh scoring, the function recovery of patients was evaluated as excellent, good, fair or poor.