Literature DB >> 34756605

Calcaneal skeletal traction versus elastic intramedullary nailing of displaced tibial shaft fractures in children- letter to editor.

Akshat Gupta1, Sandeep Kumar2, Abhay Elhence3, Sumit Banerjee4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34756605      PMCID: PMC9447407          DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.09.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.687


× No keyword cloud information.
Dear Editor, We read the article “Calcaneal skeletal traction versus elastic intramedullary nailing of displaced tibial shaft fractures in children” by Zeng et al [1], with a lot of interest. We commend the authors efforts in describing a relatively simple method of stabilizing paediatric tibial shaft fractures. However, we had a few concerns regarding the study findings and believe that replies by the authors can help dispel them. First, there is a discrepancy between values expressed for the duration of casting in patients undergoing elastic intramedullary nailing (EIN). In the text, the duration mentioned is 31.7± 19 days. However, the same value in table of the study [1] is depicted as 57.8 ± 25.5 days. This assumes significance as one of the benefits of calcaneal skeletal traction (CST), as advocated by the authors, is the significantly shorter duration of immobilization and casting (43.1± 20.7 days). Secondly, the average cost of hospitalization and treatment was significantly higher in the EIN group. However, the duration of hospital stay is much higher in the CST group. Was a cost-effective analysis taking into consideration the number of days away from work (for the parents/guardians) done? Previous literature has shown that paediatric long bone fractures managed by EIN incur less financial burden on the patient vis-à-vis traction alone/ traction plus casting [2,3]. Third, while skeletal traction may suffice as a definitive treatment modality for relatively stable diaphyseal injuries, their utility in displaced, rotationally unstable tibial shaft fractures is still doubtful. In such cases, EIN is preferred instead. This is because not only does it provide a three-point fixation to the fracture but also, the elasticity of the nail enables micro-motion at the fracture site which in turn helps in callus formation [4,5]. Paediatric tibial diaphyseal fractures are one of the most common childhood injuries [5]. While EIN is still the favoured method of surgical fixation, well designed randomized control trials with sufficient patient numbers are needed before a statement of the most optimal surgical procedure can be put forward.

Source of funding

None.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.
  5 in total

Review 1.  Evidence-based update on the surgical treatment of pediatric tibial shaft fractures.

Authors:  Aristides I Cruz; Jeremy E Raducha; Ishaan Swarup; Jonathan M Schachne; Peter D Fabricant
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 2.856

2.  Femoral shaft fractures in children: traction and casting versus elastic stable intramedullary nailing.

Authors:  Karl E Buechsenschuetz; Charles T Mehlman; Kevin J Shaw; Alvin H Crawford; Elisa B Immerman
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2002-11

3.  Cost analysis of managing paediatric femoral shaft fractures: flexible intramedullary nailing versus non-operative management.

Authors:  Moheb Gaid; Parminder Jeer
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 0.500

4.  Elastic intramedullary nailing in unstable fractures of the paediatric tibial diaphysis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mark G Swindells; R A Rajan
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 1.548

5.  Calcaneal skeletal traction versus elastic intramedullary nailing of displaced tibial shaft fractures in children.

Authors:  Shuaidan Zeng; Hansheng Deng; Tianfeng Zhu; Shuai Han; Zhu Xiong; Shengping Tang
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 2.586

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.