Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2014
Comparison of intramedullary nail and plate fixation in distal tibia diaphyseal fractures close to the mortise.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yavuz Umut, Sökücü Sami, Demir Bilal, Yıldırım Timur, Ozcan Cağrı, Kabukçuoğlu Yavuz Selim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare the functional and radiological results of intramedullary nailing and plate fixation techniques in the surgical treatment of distal tibia diaphyseal fractures close to the ankle joint.
METHODS: Between 2005 and 2011, 55 patients (32 males, 23 females; mean age 42 years; range 15 to 72 years) who were treated with intramedullary nailing (21 patients) or plate fixation (34 patients) due to distal tibia diaphyseal fracture were included in the study. The average follow-up period was 27.6 months (range, 12-82 months). The patients were evaluated with regard to nonunion, malunion, infection, and implant irritation. The AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) scale was used for the clinical evaluation.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the two surgical methods with respect to unification time, AOFAS score, accompanying fibula fracture, material irritation, and malunion. Nine patients had open fractures, and these patients were treated with plate fixation (p=0.100). Nonunion developed in three patients who were treated with plates. Infection occurred in one patient. Anterior knee pain was significantly higher in patients who were treated with intramedullary nails. There was no malunion in any patient.
CONCLUSION: As the distal fragment is not long enough, plate fixation technique is usually preferred in the treatment of distal tibia diaphyseal fractures. In this study, we observed that if the surgical guidelines are followed carefully, intramedullary nailing is an appropriate technique in this kind of fracture. The malunion rates are not significantly increased, and it also has the advantages of being a minimally invasive surgery with fewer wound problems.
METHODS: Between 2005 and 2011, 55 patients (32 males, 23 females; mean age 42 years; range 15 to 72 years) who were treated with intramedullary nailing (21 patients) or plate fixation (34 patients) due to distal tibia diaphyseal fracture were included in the study. The average follow-up period was 27.6 months (range, 12-82 months). The patients were evaluated with regard to nonunion, malunion, infection, and implant irritation. The AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) scale was used for the clinical evaluation.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the two surgical methods with respect to unification time, AOFAS score, accompanying fibula fracture, material irritation, and malunion. Nine patients had open fractures, and these patients were treated with plate fixation (p=0.100). Nonunion developed in three patients who were treated with plates. Infection occurred in one patient. Anterior knee pain was significantly higher in patients who were treated with intramedullary nails. There was no malunion in any patient.
CONCLUSION: As the distal fragment is not long enough, plate fixation technique is usually preferred in the treatment of distal tibia diaphyseal fractures. In this study, we observed that if the surgical guidelines are followed carefully, intramedullary nailing is an appropriate technique in this kind of fracture. The malunion rates are not significantly increased, and it also has the advantages of being a minimally invasive surgery with fewer wound problems.