Hayden P Baker1, Jason Strelzow2, Daryl Dillman2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Chicago, 5758 S. Maryland Avenue, Dept 4B, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. Hayden.Baker@uchospitals.edu. 2. The University of Chicago, Chicago, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incidence of malalignment in patients undergoing IMN for tibial shaft fractures treated with the extra-articular lateral parapatellar, suprapatellar, and infrapatellar approaches. METHODS: A retrospective review of an institutional trauma database was completed at a single level 1 trauma academic medical centre. Quality of reduction was assessed using the following three parameters: (1) < 10°of angulation in orthogonal radiographic views (2) < 5 mm of displacement between the major fracture fragments (3) < 5 mm of gap between the major fracture fragments. A good reduction was one that met all 3 criteria, an acceptable reduction met 2 criteria, and a bad reduction met one or none of the criteria. All patients treated consecutively for tibial shaft fractures between June 1, 2019 and June 1, 2020 were identified. The final cohort included 57 tibia fractures in 56 patients. Of the 57 tibia fractures, 8 (14%) were proximal third, 32 (56%) were middle third, and 17 (30%) were distal third fractures. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in angulation, displacement, or gapping with respect to surgical approach utilized or location of fracture (proximal or distal tibia fractures) on one-way ANOVA. Quality of reduction was rated as "good" in 48 (84%) of the cases (19 supra, 13 infra, and 16 lateral). Nine reductions (16%) met only two of the three reduction quality criteria and were considered acceptable reductions. These included 2 suprapatellar (1 > 5 mm displacement, 1 > 5 mm gapping), 4 infrapatellar (4 > 5 mm displacement), and 3 lateral extra-articular parapatellar (2 > 5 mm displacement and 1 > 5 mm gapping). No reductions were determined to be bad according the Baumgaertner et al. criteria. There was no significant difference in the rate of combined fibula fractures or the rate of fibular fixation between the three cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, no significant difference was found in fracture reduction angulation, displacement, and gapping in patients treated with an IMN with respect to approach for diaphyseal or metadiaphyseal tibial shaft fractures.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the incidence of malalignment in patients undergoing IMN for tibial shaft fractures treated with the extra-articular lateral parapatellar, suprapatellar, and infrapatellar approaches. METHODS: A retrospective review of an institutional trauma database was completed at a single level 1 trauma academic medical centre. Quality of reduction was assessed using the following three parameters: (1) < 10°of angulation in orthogonal radiographic views (2) < 5 mm of displacement between the major fracture fragments (3) < 5 mm of gap between the major fracture fragments. A good reduction was one that met all 3 criteria, an acceptable reduction met 2 criteria, and a bad reduction met one or none of the criteria. All patients treated consecutively for tibial shaft fractures between June 1, 2019 and June 1, 2020 were identified. The final cohort included 57 tibia fractures in 56 patients. Of the 57 tibia fractures, 8 (14%) were proximal third, 32 (56%) were middle third, and 17 (30%) were distal third fractures. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in angulation, displacement, or gapping with respect to surgical approach utilized or location of fracture (proximal or distal tibia fractures) on one-way ANOVA. Quality of reduction was rated as "good" in 48 (84%) of the cases (19 supra, 13 infra, and 16 lateral). Nine reductions (16%) met only two of the three reduction quality criteria and were considered acceptable reductions. These included 2 suprapatellar (1 > 5 mm displacement, 1 > 5 mm gapping), 4 infrapatellar (4 > 5 mm displacement), and 3 lateral extra-articular parapatellar (2 > 5 mm displacement and 1 > 5 mm gapping). No reductions were determined to be bad according the Baumgaertner et al. criteria. There was no significant difference in the rate of combined fibula fractures or the rate of fibular fixation between the three cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, no significant difference was found in fracture reduction angulation, displacement, and gapping in patients treated with an IMN with respect to approach for diaphyseal or metadiaphyseal tibial shaft fractures.