| Literature DB >> 35401776 |
Yuxuan Cong1, Hongli Deng1, Jinlai Lei1, Chao Ke1, Shuang Han1, Kun Zhang1, Hai Huang1.
Abstract
Lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is prone to occur after internal fixation of tibial fractures. This study analyzed the effect of intramedullary nailing (IMN) and plate fixation (PF) on lower-extremity DVT, providing reliable reference and guidance for future clinical treatment of tibial fractures. Sixty-eight patients with tibial fractures admitted to Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, between February 2019 and October 2020 were selected as research participants, of which 32 cases treated with open reduction and locking-compression plate fixation were assigned to the FP group and 36 cases treated with closed reduction and interlocking IMN were included in the FN group. The two groups were compared regarding the following items: clinical efficacy, operation, rehabilitation, joint function, pain, inflammatory factors (IFs), incidence of adverse reactions (ARs), blood loss, prognosis, and quality of life (QoL). The related factors affecting the occurrence of DVT were analyzed. The results identified no evident difference in the overall response rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The FN group showed longer operation time, higher incidence of ARs, and better rehabilitation, while there were lower incision length, VAS score, and IF levels (P < 0.05). The results revealed no significant difference in estnimated blood volume(EBV) and the incidence of DVT between the two groups(P > 0.05); however, the total blood loss (TBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), and blood transfusion rates in FN group were higher while the visible blood loss (VBL) was lower compared to the FP group (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis identified that blood transfusion, VBL, HBL, TBL, and treatment methods were independent risk factors affecting the occurrence of lower-extremity DVT (P < 0.05). In addition, the prognostic QoL was better in the FN group (P < 0.05). Therefore, closed reduction and interlocking IMN are more effective than open reduction and locking-compression plate fixation in the treatment of tibial fractures, but patients are more likely to suffer from lower-extremity DVT. In the future, it is necessary to carefully choose the treatment method in the treatment of tibial fracture patients to ensure their rehabilitation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35401776 PMCID: PMC8993547 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4852201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Comparison of clinical baseline data.
| FP group ( | FN group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 50.22±17.01 | 49.53±20.03 | 0.152 | 0.880 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.16±2.89 | 21.57±2.71 | 0.869 | 0.388 |
| Operation time after fracture (h)∗ | 64.16±4.53 | 62.96±4.89 | 1.045 | 0.300 |
| Gender | 0.567 | 0.452 | ||
| Male | 24 (75.00) | 24 (66.67) | ||
| Female | 8 (25.00) | 12 (33.33) | ||
| Etiology | 0.418 | 0.937 | ||
| Traffic accident | 17 (53.13) | 19 (52.78) | ||
| Fall injury | 6 (18.75) | 5 (13.89) | ||
| Injury in sports | 7 (21.88) | 9 (25.00) | ||
| Hit injury | 2 (6.25) | 3 (8.33) | ||
| Fracture site | 0.052 | 0.974 | ||
| Upper section | 14 (43.75) | 15 (41.67) | ||
| Middle section | 9 (28.13) | 10 (27.78) | ||
| Low section | 9 (28.13) | 11 (30.56) | ||
| Smoking | 0.066 | 0.800 | ||
| Yes | 15 (46.88) | 18 (50.00) | ||
| No | 17 (53.13) | 18 (50.00) | ||
| Drinking | ||||
| Yes | 12 (37.50) | 12 (33.33) | ||
| No | 20 (62.50) | 24 (66.67) | ||
| Place of residence | 0.260 | 0.610 | ||
| City | 24 (75.00) | 25 (69.44) | ||
| Countryside | 8 (25.00) | 11 (30.56) | ||
| Surgery approach | ||||
| Inside | 14 (43.75) | |||
| Outside | 18 (56.25) |
Operation time after fracture: the time from the occurrence of fracture to surgery.
Comparison of clinical efficacy.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | Excellent rate | Response rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FN group ( | 25 (69.44) | 8 (22.22) | 2 (5.56) | 1 (2.78) | 91.67% | 97.22% |
| FP group ( | 20 (62.50) | 9 (28.13) | 1 (3.13) | 2 (6.25) | 90.63% | 93.75% |
|
| 0.023 | 0.484 | ||||
|
| 0.880 | 0.487 |
Figure 1Comparison of surgical conditions. (a) Operation time. (b) Incision length. Note: #P < 0.05.
Figure 2Comparison of rehabilitation. (a) Fracture healing time of the two groups. (b) Weight-bearing time of the two groups. (c) Length of hospital stay in the two groups. Note: #P < 0.05.
Figure 3Comparison of joint function. (a) Ankle joint movement angles of the two groups. (b) Knee flexion angles of the two groups. (c) Harris scores of the two groups.
Figure 4Comparison of pain and inflammatory factors. (a) VAS scores of the two groups. (b) IL-1β levels in two groups. (c) IL-6 levels in two groups. (d) IL-8 levels in two groups. Note: vs. the FP group, #P < 0.05; vs. before surgery, &P < 0.05; vs. 3 d after surgery, @P < 0.05.
Comparison of incidence of complications.
| Knee pain | Incision infection | Broken nail | Malunion | Total incidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FN group ( | 3 (8.33) | 4 (11.11) | 2 (5.56) | 2 (5.56) | 30.56% |
| FP group ( | 2 (6.25) | 1 (3.13) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 9.38% |
|
| 4.566 | ||||
|
| 0.033 |
Figure 5Comparison of blood loss. (a) EBV in two groups. (b) TBL in two groups. (c) VBL in two groups. (d) HBL in two groups. (e) Blood transfusion rates of the two groups. (f) Incidence of DVT in two groups. Note: #P < 0.05.
Assignment table.
| Factor | Assignment |
|---|---|
| Operation time | ≤116 = 0, >116 = 1 |
| Incision length | ≤7 = 0, >7 = 1 |
| TBL | ≤401 = 0, >401 = 1 |
| VBL | ≤88 = 0, >88 = 1 |
| HBL | ≤296 = 0, >296 = 1 |
| Blood transfusion | No = 0, yes = 1 |
| The way of treatment | Plate internal fixation = 0, intramedullary nail fixation = 1 |
The cutoff value is the median of the two sets of levels.
Multivariate analysis of factors influencing the occurrence of lower-extremity DVT.
|
| SE | Wald | 95% CI | Exp ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time | 0.046 | 0.006 | 0.842 | 1.034-2.542 | 1.334 | 0.324 |
| Incision length | 0.103 | 0.028 | 1.130 | 2.542-4.632 | 5.812 | 0.125 |
| TBL | 1.162 | 0.203 | 32.493 | 2.141-4.762 | 1.252 | <0.001 |
| VBL | 0.243 | 0.067 | 13.162 | 1.114-1.428 | 0.981 | <0.001 |
| HBL | -0.014 | 0.005 | 8.995 | 0.973-0.998 | 0.943 | <0.001 |
| Blood transfusion | -0.056 | 0.021 | 7.724 | 1.162-1.354 | 1.254 | <0.001 |
| The way of treatment | 0.226 | 0.034 | 33.084 | 0.972-0.993 | 0.982 | <0.001 |
Figure 6Comparison of prognosis. (a) PF scores of the two groups. (b) RP scores of the two groups. (c) BP scores of the two groups. (d) VT scores of the two groups. (e) SF scores of the two groups. (f) RE scores of the two groups. (g) MH scores of the two groups. Note: #P < 0.05.