Dataset Information

Intramedullary Nailing Versus External Fixation in the Treatment of Open Tibial Fractures in Tanzania: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Open tibial fractures are common injuries in low and middle-income countries, but there is no consensus regarding treatment with intramedullary nailing versus external fixation. The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes of initial treatment with intramedullary nailing or external fixation in adults with open tibial fractures.

Methods

We conducted a randomized clinical trial (RCT) at a tertiary orthopaedic center in Tanzania. Adults with acute diaphyseal open tibial fractures were randomly assigned to statically locked, hand-reamed intramedullary nailing or uniplanar external fixation. The primary outcome was death or reoperation for the treatment of deep infection, nonunion, or malalignment. Secondary outcomes included quality of life as measured with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire, radiographic alignment, and healing as measured with the modified Radiographic Union Scale for Tibial fractures (mRUST).

Results

Of the 240 patients who were enrolled, 221 (92.1%) (including 111 managed with intramedullary nailing and 110 managed with external fixation) completed 1-year follow-up. There were 44 primary outcome events (with rates of 18.0% and 21.9% in the intramedullary nailing and external fixation groups, respectively) (relative risk [RR] = 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49 to 1.41]; p = 0.505). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the rate of deep infection. Intramedullary nailing was associated with a lower risk of coronal malalignment (RR = 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.85]; p = 0.01) and sagittal malalignment (RR = 0.17 [95% CI, 0.02 to 1.35]; p = 0.065) at 1 year. The EQ-5D index favored intramedullary nailing at 6 weeks (mean difference [MD] = 0.07 [95% CI = 0.03 to 0.11]; p < 0.001), but this difference dissipated by 1 year. Radiographic healing (mRUST) favored intramedullary nailing at 6 weeks (MD = 1.2 [95% CI = 0.4 to 2.0]; p = 0.005), 12 weeks (MD = 1.0 [95% CI = 0.3 to 1.7]; p = 0.005), and 1 year (MD = 0.8 [95% CI = 0.2 to 1.5]; p = 0.013).

Conclusions

To our knowledge, the present study is the first RCT assessing intramedullary nailing versus external fixation for the treatment of open tibial fractures in sub-Saharan Africa. Differences in primary events were not detected, and only coronal alignment significantly favored the use of intramedullary nailing.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Haonga BT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7508278 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundTibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) intramedullary nailing has been suggested as an alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for the primary treatment of unstable fragility ankle fractures with a poor soft tissue envelope. This study aims to investigate the clinical efficacy of TTC intramedullary nail fixation for the primary treatment of unstable ankle fractures in frail elderly patients with poor soft tissue condition, by assessing the number of postoperative complications and the patient-reported functional outcomes.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed including patients with an unstable ankle fracture treated between 2015 and 2019 with TTC stabilization using a retrograde intramedullary hindfoot nail that was inserted without joint preparation and allowing immediate weight-bearing postoperatively. The primary outcome was the total number of postoperative complications.ResultsA total of 10 patients were included out of 365 operatively treated ankle fractures. The mean age was 85.2 years (range 66-92) with a mean follow-up of 11.2 months (range 6-16). Fracture types included AO/OTA 44-B2 (n = 1), 44-B3 (n = 6), 44-C1 (n = 2) and 44-C3 (n = 1). Postoperative complications were observed in 4 patients (40%), including 3 nonunions, 2 implant related complications and 1 wound infection. No wound healing disorder or below-the-knee amputation was observed. Four patients (40%) deceased between post-operative 6 to 16 months due to medical conditions unrelated to surgery. The mean Foot and Ankle Outcome Score was 52.6 (range 44.2-73.8).ConclusionHindfoot nailingis a viable treatment option in selected high-risk patients with an advanced age, unstable ankle fractures with significant bone loss, poor soft tissue condition and/or severely impaired pre-injury mobility. In a frail geriatric population, hindfoot nailing may be a safe alternative fixation method with a low risk of wound complication or major amputation. However, unprepared joint may lead to symptomatic nonunion after TTC intramedullary nailing.