| Literature DB >> 34503904 |
Kapil Mani Kc1, Bandhu Ram Pangeni2, Suman Babu Marahatta2, Arun Sigdel2, Amuda Kc3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment of distal tibia fractures poses significant challenge to orthopedic surgeon because of poor blood supply and paucity of soft tissue coverage. There is considerable controversy regarding the superior option of treatment for distal tibia fracture between the minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) technique and intramedullary interlocking (IMIL) nailing for extra-articular distal tibia fractures. The aim of our study is to compare the functional outcome between the two treatment methods.Entities:
Keywords: Distal tibia fractures; IMIL nailing; MIPPO technique; Maiunion
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34503904 PMCID: PMC9039483 DOI: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.08.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin J Traumatol ISSN: 1008-1275
Fig. 1Preoperative (A) anteroposterior and (B) lateral radiographs showing distal third tibia fracture; (C) anteroposterior and lateral views of the ankle and shaft of the tibia showing fracture fixation with MIPPO technique 16 weeks after surgery; (D) anteroposterior view radiograph 20 weeks after surgery; (E) lateral view radiograph 20 weeks after surgery; (F) postoperative multiple healed wound with nonabsorbable suture on tibia side 2 weeks after surgery; (G) postoperative fibular wound 2 weeks after surgery.
Fig. 2(A) Preoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of distal third tibia and midshaft fibula fractures; (B) Immediate postoperative radiograph anteroposterior and lateral views fixed with precountered locking compression plate with MIPPO technique.
Fig. 3(A) Preoperative radiograph of ankle and leg showing distal third tibia fracture; (B) Postoperative Xray showing IMIL nail 3 months after surgery anteroposterior view; (C) Lateral View.
Comparison of the age and treatment outcomes between MIPPO and IMIL nailing groups.
| Variables | Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MIPPO | IMIL nailing | ||
| Age (years) | 41.14 (18–61) ±10.52 | 37.34 (19–68) ±11.21 | 0.084 |
| Fracture union time (week) | 26.06 (19–48) ± 5.35 | 25.90 (18–46) ± 5.19 | 0.854 |
| Surgical time (min) | 59.42 (40–80) ± 8.97 | 60.80 (44–80) ± 8.59 | |
| Fluoroscopy time (min) | 15.31 ± 1.28 | 14.12 ± 1.22 | |
| Hospital stay (day) | 6.82 (5–10) ± 1.27 | 6.40 (4–9) ± 1.19 | 0.092 |
| Time to partial weight bearing (week) | 7.32 (6–11) ± 1.49 | 7.02 (5–10) ± 1.55 | |
| AOFAS score (final follow-up) | 84.16 (60–98) ± 8.80 | 83.84 (61–98) ± 8.87 | 0.855 |
| Malunion (degrees) | 5 (3–7) ± 1.41 | 10.22 (8–14) ± 2.04 | 0.001 |
MIPPO: minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis; IMIL: intramedullary interlocking; AOFAS: American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society.
Comparison of delayed union, nonunion, superficial infection, deep infection and knee pain between the two groups, n (%).
| Variables | Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MIPPO ( | IMIL nailing ( | ||
| Delayed union | 6 (12.0) | 7 (14.0) | 0.769 |
| Nonunion | 1 (2.0) | 3 (6.0) | 0.04 |
| Superficial infection | 4 (8.0) | 2 (4.0) | 0.04 |
| Knee pain | 1 (2.0) | 5 (10.0) | 0.024 |
| Deep infection | 1 (2.0) | 1 (2.0) | 0.1 |
MIPPO: minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis; IMIL: intramedullary interlocking.