Dataset Information

Reamed compared with unreamed nailing of tibial shaft fractures: Does the initial method of nail insertion influence outcome in patients requiring reoperations?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with a tibial shaft fracture experiencing their first postoperative complication following treatment with intramedullary nails may be at greater risk of subsequent complications than the whole population. We aimed to determine whether the initial method of nail insertion influences outcome in patients with a tibial shaft fracture requiring multiple reoperations.

Methods

Using the Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Tibial Shaft Fractures trial data, we categorized patients as those not requiring reoperation, those requiring a single reoperation and those requiring multiple reoperations, and we compared them by nail insertion technique (reamed v. unreamed) and fracture type (open v. closed). We then determined the number of patients whose first reoperation was in response to infection, and we compared other clinical outcomes between the reamed and unreamed groups.

Results

Among 1226 patients included in this analysis, 175 (14.27%) experienced a single reoperation and 44 patients (3.59%) underwent multiple reoperations. Nail insertion techniques (reamed v. unreamed) did not play a role in the need to perform multiple reoperations. Seventy-five percent of patients requiring multiple reoperations had open tibial shaft fractures. An equal number of these were reamed and unreamed insertions. The majority of patients had their course complicated by infection and almost 50% of patients whose first reoperation was for infection required more than 2 reoperations for management. The rest required multiple procedures for nonunion or bone loss.

Conclusion

Our findings corroborate those of other studies, in which open fracture type rather than nail insertion technique was found to be the cause of morbidity following intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures.

Clinical trial registration

www.

Clinicaltrials

gov, no. NCT00038129.

SUBMITTER: Schemitsch EH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10355994 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reamed compared with unreamed nailing of tibial shaft fractures: Does the initial method of nail insertion influence outcome in patients requiring reoperations?

Schemitsch Emil H EH Kumar Ashesh A Heels-Ansdell Diane D Sprague Sheila S Bhandari Mohit M Guyatt Gordon G Sanders David W DW Swiontkowski Marc M Tornetta Paul P Walter Stephen S

Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie 20230713 4

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with a tibial shaft fracture experiencing their first postoperative complication following treatment with intramedullary nails may be at greater risk of subsequent complications than the whole population. We aimed to determine whether the initial method of nail insertion influences outcome in patients with a tibial shaft fracture requiring multiple reoperations.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Tibial Shaft Fractu ...[more]

PMID: 37442585

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere remains a compelling biological rationale for both reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Previous small trials have left the evidence for either approach inconclusive. We compared reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing with regard to the rates of reoperations and complications in patients with tibial shaft fractures.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, blinded randomized trial of 1319 adults in whom a tibial shaft fracture was treated with either reamed or unreamed intramedullary nailing. Perioperative care was standardized, and reoperations for nonunion before six months were disallowed. The primary composite outcome measured at twelve months postoperatively included bone-grafting, implant exchange, and dynamization in patients with a fracture gap of <1 cm. Infection and fasciotomy were considered as part of the composite outcome, irrespective of the postoperative gap.ResultsOne thousand two hundred and twenty-six participants (93%) completed one year of follow-up. Of these, 622 patients were randomized to reamed nailing and 604 patients were randomized to unreamed nailing. Among all patients, fifty-seven (4.6%) required implant exchange or bone-grafting because of nonunion. Among all patients, 105 in the reamed nailing group and 114 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary outcome event (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.15). In patients with closed fractures, forty-five (11%) of 416 in the reamed nailing group and sixty-eight (17%) of 410 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.96; p = 0.03). This difference was largely due to differences in dynamization. In patients with open fractures, sixty of 206 in the reamed nailing group and forty-six of 194 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.78; p = 0.16).ConclusionsThe present study demonstrates a possible benefit for reamed intramedullary nailing in patients with closed fractures. We found no difference between approaches in patients with open fractures. Delaying reoperation for nonunion for at least six months may substantially decrease the need for reoperation.

Project description:BackgroundOpen tibial shaft fractures are one of the most devastating orthopaedic injuries. Surgical treatment options include reamed or unreamed nailing, plating, Ender nails, Ilizarov fixation, and external fixation. Using a network meta-analysis allows comparison and facilitates pooling of a diverse population of randomized trials across these approaches in ways that a traditional meta-analysis does not.Questions/purposesOur aim was to perform a network meta-analysis using evidence from randomized trials on the relative effect of alternative approaches on the risk of unplanned reoperation after open fractures of the tibial diaphysis. Our secondary study endpoints included malunion, deep infection, and superficial infection.MethodsA network meta-analysis allows for simultaneous consideration of the relative effectiveness of multiple treatment alternatives. To do this on the subject of surgical treatments for open tibial fractures, we began with systematic searches of databases (including EMBASE and MEDLINE) and performed hand searches of orthopaedic journals, bibliographies, abstracts from orthopaedic conferences, and orthopaedic textbooks, for all relevant material published between 1980 and 2013. Two authors independently screened abstracts and manuscripts and extracted the data, three evaluated the risk of bias in individual studies, and two applied Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to bodies of evidence. We included all randomized and quasirandomized trials comparing two (or more) surgical treatment options for open tibial shaft fractures in predominantly (ie, > 80%) adult patients. We calculated pooled estimates for all direct comparisons and conducted a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence for all 15 comparisons between six stabilization strategies. Fourteen trials published between 1989 and November 2011 met our inclusion criteria; the trials comprised a total of 1279 patients surgically treated for open tibial shaft fractures.ResultsModerate confidence evidence showed that unreamed nailing may reduce the likelihood of reoperation compared with external fixation (network odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62; p < 0.05), although not necessarily compared with reamed nailing (direct OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.45-1.24; p = 0.25). Only low- or very low-quality evidence informed the primary outcome for other treatment comparisons, such as those involving internal plate fixation, Ilizarov external fixation, and Ender nailing. Method ranking based on reoperation data showed that unreamed nailing had the highest probability of being the best treatment, followed by reamed nailing, external fixation, and plate fixation. CIs around pooled estimates of malunion and infection risk were very wide, and therefore no conclusive results could be made based on these data.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that intramedullary nailing may be superior to other fixation strategies for open tibial shaft fractures. Use of unreamed nails over reamed nails also may be advantageous in the setting of open fractures, but this remains to be confirmed. Unfortunately, these conclusions are based on trials that have had high risk of bias and poor precision. Larger and higher-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these conclusions and better inform clinical decision-making.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:BackgroundTibial shaft fractures are the most common long-bone injury, with a reported annual incidence of more than 75 000 in the United States. This study aimed to determine whether patients with tibial fractures managed with intramedullary nails experience a lower rate of reoperation if treated at higher-volume hospitals, or by higher-volume or more experienced surgeons.MethodsThe Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) was a multicentre randomized clinical trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing on rates of reoperation to promote fracture union, treat infection or preserve the limb in patients with open and closed fractures of the tibial shaft. Using data from SPRINT, we quantified centre and surgeon volumes into quintiles. We performed analyses adjusted for type of fracture (open v. closed), type of injury (isolated v. multitrauma), gender and age for the primary outcome of reoperation using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the odds of reoperation between high- and low-volume centres (p = 0.9). Overall, surgeon volume significantly affected the odds of reoperation (p = 0.03). The odds of reoperation among patients treated by moderate-volume surgeons were 50% less than those among patients treated by verylow-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.88), and the odds of reoperation among patients treated by high-volume surgeons were 47% less than those among patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30–0.93).ConclusionThere appears to be no significant additional patient benefit in treatment by a higher-volume centre for intramedullary fixation of tibial shaft fractures. Additional research on the effects of surgical and clinical site volume in tibial shaft fracture management is needed to confirm this finding. The odds of reoperation were higher in patients treated by very-low-volume surgeons; this finding may be used to optimize the results of tibial shaft fracture management. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00038129

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to reveal the treatment preferences and current practices regarding open tibial shaft fracture (OTSF).Patients and methodsOnline surveys of treatment preferences and current practice of OTSF were conducted by orthopedic trauma doctors from various medical institutions in Zhejiang Province. The survey contains three modules. The first module is the basic information of the participants, the second module is the treatment patterns for Gustilo-Anderson type I-II (GA I/II), and the third module is the treatment patterns for Gustilo-Anderson type IIIA (GA IIIA). Furthermore, each treatment pattern was divided into four aspects, including antibiotic prophylaxis, irrigation and debridement, fracture stabilization, and wound management.ResultsA total of 132 orthopedic trauma doctors from 41 hospitals in Zhejiang province, participated the online surveys. In GA I-IIIA OTSF, more than three-quarters of participants considered <3 h as the appropriate timing of antibiotic administration after trauma. In fact, only 41.67% of participants administered antibiotics within 3 h after trauma. 90.91 and 86.36% of participants thought debridement within 6 h was reasonable for GA I/II and GA IIIA OTSF, respectively. However, in reality only about half of patients received debridement within 6 h on average. The most common reason for delayed debridement was patients' transport delay. 87.88 and 97.3% of participants preferred secondary internal fixation following external fixation for GA I/II and GA IIIA OTSF, respectively. Additionally, over half of participants preferred use of locking plate for treating GA I-IIIA OTSF. The most common reasons for choosing delayed internal fixation for GA I-IIIA OTSF were infection risk and damage control. 78.79 and 65.91% supported immediate internal fixation after removing the external fixation for GA I-IIIA OTSF, respectively. Regarding wound closure, 86.36 and 63.64% of participants reported primary closure for GA I/II and GA IIIA OTSF, respectively. Over three fourths of participants agreed that preoperative and postoperative multiple wound cultures should be performed to predict infection for GA I-IIIA OTSF.ConclusionThe study first presents the current preference and practice regarding management of GA I-IIIA OTSF in Zhejiang. Majority of surgeons in our study preferred secondary internal fixation following external fixation for GA I-IIIA OTSF and over half of surgeons preferred use of locking plate for treating GA I-IIIA OTSF. This study may provide a reference for trauma orthopedic surgeons in the treatment of GA I-IIIA OTSF.

Project description:ContextAcute tibial shaft fractures represent one of the most severe injuries in sports. Return rates and return-to-sport times after these injuries are limited, particularly with regard to the outcomes of different treatment methods.ObjectiveTo determine the current evidence for the treatment of and return to sport after tibial shaft fractures.Data sourcesOVID/MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Collaboration Database, Web of Science, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Google Scholar were all searched for articles published from 1988 to 2014.Study selectionInclusion criteria comprised studies of level 1 to 4 evidence, written in the English language, that reported on the management and outcome of tibial shaft fractures and included data on either return-to-sport rate or time. Studies that failed to report on sporting outcomes, those of level 5 evidence, and those in non-English language were excluded.Study designSystematic review.Level of evidenceLevel 4.Data extractionThe search used combinations of the terms tibial, tibia, acute, fracture, athletes, sports, nonoperative, conservative, operative, and return to sport. Two authors independently reviewed the selected articles and created separate data sets, which were subsequently combined for final analysis.ResultsA total of 16 studies (10 retrospective, 3 prospective, 3 randomized controlled trials) were included (n = 889 patients). Seventy-six percent (672/889) of the patients were men, with a mean age of 27.7 years. Surgical management was assessed in 14 studies, and nonsurgical management was assessed in 8 studies. Return to sport ranged from 12 to 54 weeks after surgical intervention and from 28 to 182 weeks after nonsurgical management (mean difference, 69.5 weeks; 95% CI, -83.36 to -55.64; P < 0.01). Fractures treated surgically had a return-to-sport rate of 92%, whereas those treated nonsurgically had a return rate of 67% (risk ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.57; P < 0.01).ConclusionThe general principles are to undertake surgical management for displaced fractures and to attempt nonsurgical management for undisplaced fractures. Primary surgical intervention of undisplaced fractures, however, may result in higher return rates and shorter return times, though this exposes the patient to the risk of surgical complications, which include surgical site infection and compartment syndrome.

Project description:ObjectivesDetermine the impact of infections on direct costs and healthcare resource use in England for patients undergoing intramedullary nailing (IMN) for tibial shaft fractures.DesignNon-concurrent cohort based on retrospectively collected data with 2-year follow-up.SettingEngland.ParticipantsThe study population included adult patients (≥18 years) in England with a diagnosis of tibial shaft fracture (International Classification of Diseases-10, S822) in the inpatient setting between May 2003 and June 2017 followed by a procedure for IMN for tibial shaft fracture within 30 days. Patient data were derived from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics datasets.Primary independent variableInfection.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was total inpatient costs from index stay admission through 1 year of follow-up. Secondary outcome included cumulative total healthcare costs, and resource utilisation at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year and 2 years.ResultsOverall, 805 patients met the inclusion criteria. At index inpatient stay, 3.7% had a post-IMN infection, rising to 11.7% at 1 year. One-year inpatient costs were 80% higher for patients with infection (p<0.001). Total costs were estimated to be £14 756 (95% CI £13 123 to £16 593) for patients with infection versus £8279 (95% CI £7946 to £8626). Length of stay (LOS), readmission and reoperation were the key drivers of healthcare costs (all p<0.001). After adjustment, LOS was higher by 109% (95% CI 62% to 169%), from 10.5 days to 21.9 days, for patients with infection. The odds of being readmitted or requiring reoperation were higher by 5.18 times (95% CI 3.01 to 9.13) and 2.47 times (95% CI 1.48 to 4.09), respectively, for patients with infection versus those without infection.ConclusionsPost-IMN infection significantly increases inpatient costs, LOS, readmissions and reoperations associated with tibial fracture fixation. Healthcare burden could be reduced through novel surgical site infection prevention strategies.

Dataset Information

Reamed compared with unreamed nailing of tibial shaft fractures: Does the initial method of nail insertion influence outcome in patients requiring reoperations?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical trial registration

Clinicaltrials

Publications

Reamed compared with unreamed nailing of tibial shaft fractures: Does the initial method of nail insertion influence outcome in patients requiring reoperations?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets