| Literature DB >> 34964267 |
Yao Lu1, Jie Yang2, Yibo Xu1, Teng Ma1, Ming Li1, Cheng Ren1, Qiang Huang1, Congming Zhang1, Qian Wang1, Zhong Li1, Kun Zhang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a new approach to intraoperatively identify the presence of coronal plane deformities (both valgus and varus) when treating tibial fractures with closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation.Entities:
Keywords: Angulation deformity; Intramedullary nail; Tibia fracture; Valgus; Varus
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34964267 PMCID: PMC8867441 DOI: 10.1111/os.13194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop Surg ISSN: 1757-7853 Impact factor: 2.071
Fig 1General view of the projection line on the coronal plane. The tibial intramedullary nail projection line (line a), the knee joint surface projection line (line b), the tibiotalar joint surface projection line (line c) and the axis of distal horizontal interlocking screw projection line (line d).
Fig 3A representative case where a 21‐year‐old male who experienced a road traffic accident that resulted in left calf and right knee pain with limited activity. Radiograph at the emergency room demonstrated left tibia and fibula fractures combined with contralateral tibial plateau fractures. (A) Left tibia and fibula fractures (AO/OTA 42‐C3) as shown by the AP views. (B) Left tibia and fibula fractures (42‐C3) on the lateral views. (C) The insertion of the finger reduction device through a guide wire. (D) The insertion of the nail after gradual reaming and the distal interlocking screws were locked by the free hand procedure. An included angle emerged between line c and line d, which pointed to the fibula on the hand drawing diagram of intraoperative image intensification. (E) The AP view of the distal fragment demonstrated a valgus deformity. (F) Reinsertion of the nail after application of the poller screw technique for the distal tibial fragment. (G) The parallel relationship between line c and line don image intensification and the hand drawing diagram indicated the correction of the valgus deformity intraoperatively.
Fig 2A schematic of the ideal starting point of intramedullary nailing. (A) The ideal starting point of the guide wire on the AP views intraoperatively. (B) The ideal starting point of the guide wire on the lateral views intraoperatively.
Fig 4Postoperative radiographic results demonstrated satisfactory reduction, alignment and implant location. (A) The AP view of X‐ray films 2 days after surgery. (B) The lateral view of X‐ray films 2 days after surgery.
Fig 5Functional outcomes 1 year after surgery. (A) The plantarflextion of the ankle joint at 1 year follow‐up. (B) The dorsiflexion of the ankle joint at 1 year follow‐up. (C) Range of motion for the knee joint at 1 year follow‐up. (D) The AP view of the postoperative radiograph at 1 year follow‐up. (E) The lateral view of the postoperative radiograph at 1 year follow‐up.