Dataset Information

Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plating for Proximal Tibia Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Extra-articular proximal tibia fractures make up to one-tenth of all tibia shaft fractures. Treatment options include conservative, nailing, plating and external fixation. There is no consensus on which method is superior if the patient is to be managed surgically.

Materials and methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to know which definitive surgical treatment option (nailing or plating) is better for extra-articular proximal tibia fracture. We used search engines like PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Ovid Medline and Google Scholar to find articles comparing the results of nailing versus plating. We could identify only 4 articles regarding this and data was extracted and meta-analysis was done.

Results

Delayed union was common in the nailing group with odds ratio of 8.29 favoring the plating group (95% CI 1.77, 38.80, p = 0.007) while malunion showed no difference in both groups. Rate of infection was higher in the plating group while anterior knee pain was common in the nailing group with odds ratio of 5.54 favoring the plating group (95% CI 1.49, 13.88, p = 0.008). Range of motion showed no difference between both groups, fractures in the nailing group united early and the difference was significant (p = 0.005, odds ratio - 4.48) (95% CI - 8.29, - 1.47).The surgical duration was less in the nailing group but was not significant.

Conclusion

Considering lesser time for union, early weight bearing, lower chances of infection and lesser surgical duration, nailing seems to be more promising for extra articular proximal tibia fractures. Further research is required on this topic to provide a definitive evidence.

SUBMITTER: Jindal K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8081780 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Plate fixation and intramedullary fixation are the most commonly used surgical treatment options for mid-shaft clavicle fractures; the latter method has demonstrated better performance in some studies. Objectives. Our aim was to critically review and summarize the literature comparing the outcomes of mid-shaft clavicle fracture treatment with plate fixation or intramedullary fixation to identify the better approach. Search Methods. Potential academic articles were identified from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966-2015.5), PubMed (1966-2015.5), EMBASE (1980-2015.5) and ScienceDirect (1966-2015.5). Gray studies were identified from the references of the included literature. Selection Criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing plate fixation and intramedullary fixation for mid-shaft clavicle fracture were included. Data Collection and Analysis. Two reviewers performed independent data abstraction. The I (2) statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. A fixed- or random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Results. Six RCTs and nine non-RCTs were retrieved, including 513 patients in the intramedullary fixation group and 521 patients in the plating group. No significant differences in terms of the union rate and shoulder function were found between the groups. Patients in the intramedullary fixation group had a shorter operative time, less blood loss, smaller wound size, and shorter union time than those in the plating group. With respect to complications, significant differences were identified for all complications and major complications (wound infection, nonunion, implant failures, transient brachial plexopathy, and pain after 6 months). Similar secondary complications (symptomatic hardware, hardware irritation, prominence, numbness, hypertrophic callus) were observed in both groups. Conclusions. Intramedullary fixation may be superior to plate fixation in the treatment of mid-shaft clavicle fractures, with similar performance in terms of the union rate and shoulder function, better operative parameters and fewer complications.

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.

Project description:BackgroundPrediction of negative postoperative outcomes after long-bone fracture treatment may help to optimize patient care. We recently completed the Study to Prospectively Evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT), a large, multicenter trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures in 1226 patients. Using the SPRINT data, we conducted an investigation of baseline and surgical factors to determine any associations with an increased risk of adverse events within one year of intramedullary nailing.MethodsUsing multivariable logistic regression analysis, we investigated fifteen baseline and surgical factors for any associations with an increased risk of negative outcomes.ResultsThere was an increased risk of negative events in patients with a high-energy mechanism of injury (odds ratio [OR] = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 2.35), a stainless steel compared with a titanium nail (OR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.13), a fracture gap (OR = 2.40; 95% CI, 1.47 to 3.94), and full weight-bearing status after surgery (OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.64). There was no increased risk with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, late or early time to surgery, or smoking status. Open fractures had a higher risk of events among patients treated with reamed nailing (OR = 3.26; 95% CI, 2.01 to 5.28) but not in patients treated with unreamed nailing (OR = 1.50; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.47). Patients with open fractures who had wound management either without any additional procedures or with delayed primary closure had a decreased risk of events compared with patients who required subsequent, more complex reconstruction (OR = 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.35] and 0.29 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.62], respectively).ConclusionsWe identified several baseline fracture and surgical characteristics that may increase the risk of adverse events in patients with tibial shaft fractures. Surgeons should consider the predictors identified in our analysis to inform patients treated for tibial shaft fractures.Level of evidencePrognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of suprapatellar (SP)-nailing versus infrapatellar (IP)-nailing of tibia fractures in anterior knee pain, complications (retropatellar chondropathy, infection, and malalignment) and physical functioning and quality of life. A clinical question-driven and thorough systematic review of current literature is provided.Data sourcePubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2020 relating to SP and IP-nailing of tibia fractures. The study is performed in concordance with PRISMA-guidelines.Study selectionStudies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting on outcomes of interest.Data extractionData extraction was performed independently by 2 assessors. Methodological quality and risk of bias was assessed according to the guidelines of the McMaster Critical Appraisal.Data synthesisContinuous variables are presented as means with SD and dichotomous variables as frequency and percentages. The weighted mean, standardized weighted mean differences, and 95% confidence interval were calculated. A pooled analysis could not be performed because of differences in outcome measures, time-points, and heterogeneity.ResultsFourteen studies with 1447 patients were analyzed. The weighted incidence of anterior knee pain was 29% after SP-nailing and 39% after IP-nailing, without reported significance. There was a significant lower rate of malalignment after the SP-approach (4% vs. 26%) with small absolute differences in all planes. No substantial differences were observed in retropatellar chondropathy, infection, physical functioning, and quality of life.ConclusionsThis systematic review does not reveal superiority of either technique in any of the respective outcomes of interest. Definitive choice should depend on the surgeon's experience and available resources.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.