Dataset Information

Incidence and missed diagnosis risk of occult posterior malleolar fractures associated with the tibial shaft fractures: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Tibial shaft fractures (TSFs) combined with occult posterior malleolar fractures (PMFs) are becoming widely recognized in the field of orthopedics. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical incidence, missed diagnosis rate, and treatment strategies of this combined injury.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE Ovid databases were searched for articles of English language from 1988 to 2020, identifying 1549 papers.

Results

Twenty-one of the 1278 identified studies were eligible for inclusion. Each study reported on the incidence of this combined injury, and 12 studies documented the missed diagnosis rate. Seventeen studies reported surgical intervention strategies for PMFs. In the present review, PMFs frequently occurred in spiral TSFs (70%), especially distal third spiral TSFs (70.4%), based on CT scans or additional MRI. Based on the original X-ray detection, approximately 50% of PMFs were missed in patients with a combined injury. In addition, the treatment strategies for PMFs were inconsistent. Most studies (11/17) believe that specific surgical management needs to be developed based on the fragment size, displacement, and stability of the PMF.

Conclusions

For patients with TSFs, spiral TSFs, especially distal third spiral TSFs, are closely related to PMFs and are often not sufficiently diagnosed by X-ray alone. Advanced CT and MRI examinations can significantly reduce the missed diagnosis rate of occult PMFs. According to available literature, the treatment strategy for PMFs associated with TSFs is questionable without convincing evidence of benefit.

SUBMITTER: Wang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8167951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:BackgroundThe optimal method for the reduction and fixation of posterior malleolar fracture (PMF) remains inconclusive. Currently, both of the indirect and direct reduction techniques are widely used. We aimed to compare the reduction quality and clinical outcome of posterior malleolar fracture managed with the direct reduction technique through posterolateral approach or the indirect reduction technique using ligamentotaxis.MethodsPatients with a PMF involving over 25% of the articular surface were recruited and assigned to the direct reduction (DR) group or the indirect reduction (IR) group. Following reduction and fixation of the fracture, the quality of fracture reduction was evaluated in post-operative CT images. Clinical and radiological follow-ups were performed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and then at 6 month-intervals postoperatively. Functional outcome (AOFAS score), ankle range of motion, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were evaluated at the last follow-up. Statistical differences were compared between the DR and IR groups considering the patient demographics, quality of fracture reduction, AOFAS score, and VAS.ResultsTotally 116 patients were included, wherein 64 cases were assigned to the DR group and 52 cases were assigned to the IR group. The quality of fracture reduction was significant higher in the DR group (P = 0.038). In the patients who completed a minimum of 12 months' follow-up, a median AOFAS score of 87 was recorded in the DR group, which was significantly higher than that recorded in the IR group (a median score of 80). The ankle range of motion was slightly better in the DR group, with the mean dorsiflexion restriction recorded to be 5.2° and 6.1° in the DR and IR group respectively (P = 0.331). Similar VAS score was observed in the two groups (P = 0.419).ConclusionsThe direct reduction technique through a posterolateral approach provide better quality of fracture reduction and functional outcome in the management of PMF over 25% of articular surface, as compared with the indirect reduction technique using ligamentotaxis.Trial registrationNCT02801474 (retrospectively registered, June 2016, ClinicalTrails.gov).

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.