Use of a Minimally Invasive Traction Repositor versus Conventional Manual Traction for the Treatment of Tibial Fractures: A Comparative Study from a Tertiary Hospital in China.

BACKGROUND

Closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation of tibial fractures may not utilize a fracture table or reduction aids like a femoral distractor, and only manual traction will help aid the reduction process. This study aimed to describe and further investigate the effectiveness of an originally designed minimally invasive traction repositor (MITR) for the treatment of tibial fractures.

METHODS

From January 2018 to April 2021, a total of 119 eligible patients with tibial shaft fractures were included and retrospectively assigned to two groups according to different reduction methods: MITR group vs conventional manual traction (CMT) group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable, including age, gender, BMI, residence, smoking history, drinking history, injury mechanism, fracture type, ASA, method of anesthesia, and surgical delay (all P > 0.05). The operation time, fracture reduction duration, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, VAS, HSS, fracture healing time, and complications were compared.

RESULTS

All patients completed the follow-ups with an average of 18.5 months (range 12-42 months). The operation time, fracture reduction duration, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, and number of fluoroscopies were significantly decreased in the MITR group (all P < 0.05). At one month postoperatively, the VAS score was statistically lower in the MITR group (1.8±0.8) than in the CMT group (2.6±1.5). At 6 months postoperatively, the HHS score was statistically higher in the MITR group (90.8±2.3) than in the CMT group (86.4±3.8). We observed no statistical difference in the mean fracture healing time, bone nonunion, implant failure, and infection between the two groups (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with CMT, MITR facilitates the minimally invasive treatment of tibial fractures and has the advantages of operation time, fracture reduction duration, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, number of fluoroscopies, and satisfactory VAS and HSS scores.