| Literature DB >> 31185694 |
Abuzer Uludağ1, Hacı Bayram Tosun1.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Pediatric tibial shaft fractures often have satisfactory outcomes after closed reduction and casting. However, surgical treatment may be required in unstable or open fractures. Titanium elastic nails (TENs) are a good option for the surgical treatment of pediatric tibial fractures due to their advantages such as short hospitalization periods, easy applicability, early weight bearing, and early union. In this study, we evaluated radiological and functional outcomes in pediatric patients with tibial shaft fractures that underwent fixation with TENs. Materials and methods: A total of twenty tibial shaft fractures that were treated with TENs in our clinic between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age at injury was 8.9 ± 2.78 (range of 3-14) years. Seven (35%) out of 20 fractures were open fractures, of which one fracture was classified as Grade I and six fractures were classified as Grade II. In each patient, antegrade nailing was performed by inserting a TEN in the medial and another TEN in the lateral side of the proximal metaphysis. Clinical outcomes including union, alignment, leg-length inequality, and complications were evaluated using modified Flynn's criteria.Entities:
Keywords: elastic intramedullary nail; fracture; pediatric; tibia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31185694 PMCID: PMC6630376 DOI: 10.3390/medicina55060266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) ISSN: 1010-660X Impact factor: 2.430
Figure 1Radiographs of a 11-year-old boy: preoperative anteroposterior (a) and lateral (b), postoperative first-day anteroposterior (c) and lateral (d), and postoperative 8th-week anteroposterior (e) and lateral (f) radiographs.
Demographic characteristics of patients.
| Patients | Gender | Age (year) | Side | Character of Fracture | Fracture Type | Etiology | Fracture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 11 | R | Closed | Transverse | Falling Down | Tibia-Fibula |
| 2 | M | 13 | L | Closed | Oblique | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 3 | M | 14 | L | Closed | Transverse | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 4 | F | 3 | R | Closed | Oblique | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 5 | F | 12 | L | Closed | Spiral | Falling Down | Tibia |
| 6 | M | 10 | L | Closed | Spiral | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 7 | M | 8 | L | Closed | Spiral | Falling Down | Tibia-Fibula |
| 8 | M | 8 | L | Closed | Spiral | Falling Down | Tibia |
| 7 | F | 9 | L | Closed | Spiral | Falling Down | Tibia |
| 10 | F | 7 | L | Closed | Oblique | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 11 | M | 5 | L | Closed | Transverse | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 12 | M | 5 | L | Closed | Spiral | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 13 | M | 9 | R | Closed | Spiral | Falling Down | Tibia |
| 14 | M | 7 | L | GRADE 1 | Transverse | Falling Down | Tibia-Fibula |
| 15 | M | 8 | L | GRADE 2 | Spiral | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 16 | M | 11 | R | GRADE 2 | Transverse | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 17 | M | 12 | R | GRADE 2 | Transverse | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
| 18 | M | 8 | L | GRADE 2 | Spiral | Road Accident | Tibia |
| 19 | M | 9 | L | GRADE 2 | Oblique | Falling Down | Tibia-Fibula |
| 20 | M | 9 | R | GRADE 2 | Spiral | Road Accident | Tibia-Fibula |
M: male, F: female, R: right, L: left.
A comparison of the radiological and clinical results of the patients.
| Patients | Character of Fracture | Follow up (Month) | Healing Time | Residual Deficiency | Complication | Weight-Bearing Time (Week) | Pin Tract Infection/Irritation | Shortness | Functional Result (Flynn Criteria) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Closed | 22 | 10 | 0/0 | None | 2 | Irritation | None | Excellent |
| 2 | Closed | 60 | 11 | 0/0 | None | 1 | None | None | Excellent |
| 3 | Closed | 30 | 12 | 0/0 | None | 2 | None | None | Excellent |
| 4 | Closed | 30 | 10 | 6/3 | None | 3 | None | None | Satisfactory |
| 5 | Closed | 7 | 14 | 6/8 | None | 2 | None | None | Satisfactory |
| 6 | Closed | 16 | 12 | 9/7 | None | 2 | None | None | Satisfactory |
| 7 | Closed | 18 | 14 | 4/8 | None | 2 | Irritation | None | Satisfactory |
| 8 | Closed | 42 | 7 | 0/8 | None | 2 | None | None | Excellent |
| 7 | Closed | 40 | 6 | 0/0 | None | 1 | None | None | Excellent |
| 10 | Closed | 22 | 20 | 0/0 | None | 1 | None | None | Excellent |
| 11 | Closed | 7 | 7 | 4/4 | None | 3 | Irritation | None | Excellent |
| 12 | Closed | 9 | 6 | 0/0 | None | 1 | None | None | Excellent |
| 13 | Closed | 9 | 9 | 3/5 | None | 2 | None | None | Excellent |
| 14 | Grade I Open | 28 | 8 | 0/0 | None | 1 | None | None | Excellent |
| 15 | Grade II Open | 40 | 10 | 0/0 | None | 2 | None | None | Excellent |
| 16 | Grade II Open | 15 | 10 | 9/3 | None | 3 | Irritation | None | Satisfactory |
| 17 | Grade II Open | 20 | 12 | 6/3 | Wound infection (Superficial) | 2 | None | None | Satisfactory |
| 18 | Grade II Open | 48 | 12 | 8/0 | None | 3 | None | None | Satisfactory |
| 19 | Grade II Open | 7 | 15 | 10/5 | Wound infection (Deep) | 4 | infection | Yes | Satisfactory |
| 20 | Grade II Open | 28 | 12 | 0/0 | Wound infection (Superficial) | 3 | infection | None | Excellent |
A comparison of patients with closed and open fractures.
| Features | Closed Fracture | Open Fracture | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 13 | 7 | |
| Gender M/F | 9/4 | 7/0 | |
| Side R/L | 3/10 | 3/4 | |
| Weight-bearing time (week) | 1.84 ± 0.68 | 2.57 ± 0.97 | |
| Healing time (week) | 10.61 ± 3.93 | 11.28 ± 2.21 | |
| Complication | None | 3 | |
| Residual deficiency | 5 | 4 | |
| Pin tract infection/irritation | 3 | 3 | |
| Shortness | No | 1 | |
| Functional result(Flynn Criteria) | Excellent: 9 | Excellent: 3 | |
| Satisfactory: 4 | Satisfactory: 4 |