header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Trauma

OUTCOMES FOLLOWING DISTAL TIBIAL FRACTURES: A COMPARISION OF INTRAMEDULLARY NAILING AND RING FIXATORS

British Limb Reconstruction Society (BLRS) Annual Conference, Southampton, March 2018



Abstract

Introduction

Fractures of the distal tibia can be challenging to manage. Numerous surgical techniques have been utilised in managing these however there remains debate as to the optimum method of fixation. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes and PROMs of patients with distal tibial fractures managed with intramedullary-nails or ring fixation.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients with closed distal tibial fractures managed between 01/01/2013–31/12/2016. Adult patients admitted with closed fracture of the distal tibia fixed with an intramedullary-nail or circular-frame were included in the study. Primary outcomes were time of union, alignment of tibia post-operatively and the results of two validated PROMs (Kujala knee score and Olerud and Molander Ankle Score).

Results

12 patients had circular-frame and 14 patients underwent intramedullary-nailing. PROMS were completed in 9 (75%) of the frame group and 7 (50%) of the nail group. There was no statistically significant difference in age (p=0.095); no statistically significant difference in time to union (medians = frame 29.7 weeks, IM nail 24 weeks, p=0.212); no statistically significant difference in the coronal angulation difference from neutral (medians = frame 1.9 degrees, IM nail 2.0 degrees, p=0.940). There was statistically significant difference in sagittal angulation difference from neutral (Medians = frame 3 degrees, IM nail 0.6 degrees, p=0.041); the proportion of males in the frames groups was statistically significantly higher (p=0.033). There was no statistically significant difference in outcome of ankle scores (medians = frame 92.5, IM nail 75, p=0.132); there was a statistically significant difference in the knee score favouring the frame group (medians = frame 99, IM nail 74.5, p=0.041).

Discussion

Our results show distal tibia fractures can be treated with circular-frames or IM-nails. Patients at high-risk of soft tissue complication or to minimise the risk of knee symptoms should be considered for a circular-frame.


E-mail: