Henrik C Bäcker1,2, J Turner Vosseller1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, NY, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Charité Berlin, UniversityHospital, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Distal fibula fractures are common injuries that often require open reduction internal fixation. Intramedullary fixation of the fibula has been used historically, and interest has been renewed somewhat recently, although there is limited data assessing outcomes after intramedullary fibular fixation. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature as it relates to the clinical and functional outcome after fibular fracture fixation using an intramedullary device. METHODS: A literature review on Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Google was performed. In total, 1994 abstracts were reviewed of which 30 articles in English, German and French were included, all of which evaluated the clinical and functional outcome after fibular nail osteosynthesis. RESULTS: Within the 30 studies, a total of 1116/1380 patients were treated with a fibular nail between 1986 and 2018. In total 11 different devices were investigated. Six articles compared fibular nail versus plate osteosynthesis and in five cases a prospective study was performed. The complication rate varied somewhat widely based on the implants used. The mean union rate was 99.1% with a mean follow-up of 19.0 months. In comparison to plate fixation the nail was superior in terms of complication rate in most studies. No unified assessment of functional outcome was used, and so comparison between studies was difficult. However, good and excellent results were obtained in 73%-100% of patients. CONCLUSION: Current data on intramedullary fixation of the fibula is limited and suffers significantly from inconsistency in outcome reporting. It remains to be seen whether the potential advantages of intramedullary implants can both maintain the good results of other implants and improve on some aspects of more commonly used implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, systematic review.
INTRODUCTION: Distal fibula fractures are common injuries that often require open reduction internal fixation. Intramedullary fixation of the fibula has been used historically, and interest has been renewed somewhat recently, although there is limited data assessing outcomes after intramedullary fibular fixation. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature as it relates to the clinical and functional outcome after fibular fracture fixation using an intramedullary device. METHODS: A literature review on Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Google was performed. In total, 1994 abstracts were reviewed of which 30 articles in English, German and French were included, all of which evaluated the clinical and functional outcome after fibular nail osteosynthesis. RESULTS: Within the 30 studies, a total of 1116/1380 patients were treated with a fibular nail between 1986 and 2018. In total 11 different devices were investigated. Six articles compared fibular nail versus plate osteosynthesis and in five cases a prospective study was performed. The complication rate varied somewhat widely based on the implants used. The mean union rate was 99.1% with a mean follow-up of 19.0 months. In comparison to plate fixation the nail was superior in terms of complication rate in most studies. No unified assessment of functional outcome was used, and so comparison between studies was difficult. However, good and excellent results were obtained in 73%-100% of patients. CONCLUSION: Current data on intramedullary fixation of the fibula is limited and suffers significantly from inconsistency in outcome reporting. It remains to be seen whether the potential advantages of intramedullary implants can both maintain the good results of other implants and improve on some aspects of more commonly used implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, systematic review.
Authors: Jason M Evans; Michael J Gardner; Michael L Brennan; Cameron J Phillips; M Bradford Henley; Robert P Dunbar Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Vladimir V Loukachov; Merel F N Birnie; Siem A Dingemans; Vincent M de Jong; Tim Schepers Journal: J Foot Ankle Surg Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 1.286