Ke Lu1, Yi-Jun Gao1, Chong Li2, Zhi-Qiang Wu1, Yi Yin2, Hong-Zhen Wang3. 1. Department of Joint Surgery, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, No. 91 West of Qianjin Road, Suzhou, 215300, Jiangsu, China. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Suzhou, 215300, Jiangsu, China. 3. Department of Joint Surgery, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, No. 91 West of Qianjin Road, Suzhou, 215300, Jiangsu, China. hongzhenwang2003@sina.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The semi-extended tibial intramedullary nailing method would enable easier and improved reductions for tibial fractures as well as facilitate fluoroscopic imaging; however, its in-articular nature remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of the semi-extended infrapatellar (SEIP) approach and hyper-flexed infrapatellar (HFIP) approach for intramedullary nailing to treat tibial shaft fractures. METHODS: This study involved the retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with tibial shaft fractures that were fixed through either the SEIP approach or the HFIP approach of intramedullary nailing and who were admitted to a level 1 trauma centre. The minimum patient follow-up period was 12 months and the clinical and functional outcomes were estimated at the 12-month visit. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients whose medical records were analyzed, 40 (50%) underwent SEIP nailing and the remaining 40 (50%) underwent the traditional HFIP nailing. Compared with the HFIP group, patients in the SEIP group had a higher Lysholm knee score (median, 92 [interquartile range, 88-95] vs median, 88 [interquartile range, 81-92]; p = .01), a shorter intra-operative fluoroscopy time (median, 93 [interquartile range, 78-105] s, vs median, 136 [interquartile range, 110-157] s; p < .001), and operation time (mean, 88.1 [SD, 17.8] min vs mean, 98.7 [SD, 19.3] min; p = .01). The VAS score was significantly lower in the SEIP group (median, 0; interquartile range, 0-0) than in the HFIP group (median, 0; interquartile range, 0-2) (p = .03). There were two cases (5%) in the SEIP group and 10 cases (25%) in the HFIP group of moderate AKP (p = .03). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in malalignment, nonunion, delayed union, infection, and other complications, as well as SF-36 physical and mental scores. CONCLUSION: We found that the SEIP approach to tibia intramedullary nailing was superior to the HFIP approach based on the intra-operative and post-operative outcomes. Thus, this novel technique provides an infrapatellar option for semi-extended tibial nailing.
PURPOSE: The semi-extended tibial intramedullary nailing method would enable easier and improved reductions for tibial fractures as well as facilitate fluoroscopic imaging; however, its in-articular nature remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of the semi-extended infrapatellar (SEIP) approach and hyper-flexed infrapatellar (HFIP) approach for intramedullary nailing to treat tibial shaft fractures. METHODS: This study involved the retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients with tibial shaft fractures that were fixed through either the SEIP approach or the HFIP approach of intramedullary nailing and who were admitted to a level 1 trauma centre. The minimum patient follow-up period was 12 months and the clinical and functional outcomes were estimated at the 12-month visit. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients whose medical records were analyzed, 40 (50%) underwent SEIP nailing and the remaining 40 (50%) underwent the traditional HFIP nailing. Compared with the HFIP group, patients in the SEIP group had a higher Lysholm knee score (median, 92 [interquartile range, 88-95] vs median, 88 [interquartile range, 81-92]; p = .01), a shorter intra-operative fluoroscopy time (median, 93 [interquartile range, 78-105] s, vs median, 136 [interquartile range, 110-157] s; p < .001), and operation time (mean, 88.1 [SD, 17.8] min vs mean, 98.7 [SD, 19.3] min; p = .01). The VAS score was significantly lower in the SEIP group (median, 0; interquartile range, 0-0) than in the HFIP group (median, 0; interquartile range, 0-2) (p = .03). There were two cases (5%) in the SEIP group and 10 cases (25%) in the HFIP group of moderate AKP (p = .03). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in malalignment, nonunion, delayed union, infection, and other complications, as well as SF-36 physical and mental scores. CONCLUSION: We found that the SEIP approach to tibia intramedullary nailing was superior to the HFIP approach based on the intra-operative and post-operative outcomes. Thus, this novel technique provides an infrapatellar option for semi-extended tibial nailing.
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
Authors: Frank R Avilucea; Kostas Triantafillou; Paul S Whiting; Edward A Perez; Hassan R Mir Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.512