Andreas Fontalis1, Simon Weil1, Michael Williamson1, James Houston1, Tamer Ads1, Alex Trompeter2. 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Blackshaw road, London, SW17 0QT, UK. 2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Blackshaw road, London, SW17 0QT, UK. alex_trompeter@hotmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anterior knee pain and kneeling pain are some of the most common complications following intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. With the increased uptake of suprapatellar nailing at our institution, we undertook a service evaluation to assess anterior knee pain and kneeling pain in patients who underwent the suprapatellar tibial nailing technique compared with the infrapatellar approach. METHODOLOGY: Data from all consecutive intramedullary tibial nailing operations between January 2014 and July 2017 were analysed from a prospectively collected database. All acute diaphyseal fracture nailing procedures were included. All patients were reviewed between six-month and four-year post-operation. Each patient was asked to complete a standardised questionnaire with three main outcome measures: pain on kneeling, presence of anterior knee pain and the severity of pain. RESULTS: After exclusions, a total of 148 patients were identified. A total of 102 responses were received, 41 in the infrapatellar group (73.2%) and 61 in the suprapatellar group (66.3%). A longer time from surgery to telephone follow-up response was noted in the infrapatellar group: 32.4 months (interquartile range, 16.1) vs. 19.3 months (interquartile range, 17.4), p < 0.001. A trend towards lower reported anterior knee pain was noted in the suprapatellar group (67.9% VS 53.7%). Most patients reported mild or no pain on kneeling, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was also no significant difference in severity of knee pain between the two groups and no significant effect on the Kujala score. CONCLUSION: With the comparable pain outcomes between the two groups, our analysis supports the continued use of the suprapatellar tibial nailing technique for tibial shaft fractures at our institution.
INTRODUCTION:Anterior knee pain and kneeling pain are some of the most common complications following intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. With the increased uptake of suprapatellar nailing at our institution, we undertook a service evaluation to assess anterior knee pain and kneeling pain in patients who underwent the suprapatellar tibial nailing technique compared with the infrapatellar approach. METHODOLOGY: Data from all consecutive intramedullary tibial nailing operations between January 2014 and July 2017 were analysed from a prospectively collected database. All acute diaphyseal fracture nailing procedures were included. All patients were reviewed between six-month and four-year post-operation. Each patient was asked to complete a standardised questionnaire with three main outcome measures: pain on kneeling, presence of anterior knee pain and the severity of pain. RESULTS: After exclusions, a total of 148 patients were identified. A total of 102 responses were received, 41 in the infrapatellar group (73.2%) and 61 in the suprapatellar group (66.3%). A longer time from surgery to telephone follow-up response was noted in the infrapatellar group: 32.4 months (interquartile range, 16.1) vs. 19.3 months (interquartile range, 17.4), p < 0.001. A trend towards lower reported anterior knee pain was noted in the suprapatellar group (67.9% VS 53.7%). Most patients reported mild or no pain on kneeling, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was also no significant difference in severity of knee pain between the two groups and no significant effect on the Kujala score. CONCLUSION: With the comparable pain outcomes between the two groups, our analysis supports the continued use of the suprapatellar tibial nailing technique for tibial shaft fractures at our institution.
Authors: Olli Väistö; Jarmo Toivanen; Timo Paakkala; Timo Järvelä; Pekka Kannus; Markku Järvinen Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.512