Journal of pediatric orthopedics · 2025
Are Open Distal Tibia Fractures More Severe Injuries Than Open Tibial Shaft Fractures in Children?
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Zak Taylor K, Nguyen Ivy, Ho Christine A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare a cohort of pediatric open distal tibia fractures to open tibial shaft fractures regarding demographics and treatment outcomes.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 39 open distal tibia fractures (D group) and 55 open tibia shaft fractures (S group), treated from January 2007 to May 2017 at a single level 1 pediatric trauma center. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare means between groups.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding demographics, injury mechanism, or injury severity scores. While the D group had nearly 4x times the rate of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) compared with the S group [15% (6/39) vs. 4% (2/54)] and twice the rate of external fixation [15% (6/39) vs. 7% (4/54)], these were not statistically significant ( P >0.05). D group had more Gustilo-Anderson type III open fractures compared with S group [46% (18/39) vs. 26% (14/54), P =0.04], longer mean operative times (2.5 vs. 2.1 h, P =0.04), longer hospitalization (8.7 vs. 6.5 d, P =0.01), and longer time to full weight-bearing (11.4 vs. 7.2 wk, P =0.03). Postoperative complications (delayed union, limb length discrepancy, infection) were similar between the 2 groups, although D group had nearly twice the rate of return to the operating room after index surgery [49% (19/39) vs. 26% (14/54), P =0.03]. Although over twice as many fractures in D group required a free flap compared with S group [18% (7/39) vs. 7% (4/54)], this did not reach statistical significance ( P >0.05). Two patients in each group eventually underwent amputation; all patients had Gustilo-Anderson IIIB or IIIC fractures. Radiographic angulation at final follow-up was similar between the 2 groups ( P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the challenges in treating open distal tibia fractures compared with open tibial shaft fractures. Families should be counselled on a possibly prolonged treatment course, both inpatient and postoperatively, when patients sustain an open distal tibia fracture.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective comparative study.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 39 open distal tibia fractures (D group) and 55 open tibia shaft fractures (S group), treated from January 2007 to May 2017 at a single level 1 pediatric trauma center. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare means between groups.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding demographics, injury mechanism, or injury severity scores. While the D group had nearly 4x times the rate of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) compared with the S group [15% (6/39) vs. 4% (2/54)] and twice the rate of external fixation [15% (6/39) vs. 7% (4/54)], these were not statistically significant ( P >0.05). D group had more Gustilo-Anderson type III open fractures compared with S group [46% (18/39) vs. 26% (14/54), P =0.04], longer mean operative times (2.5 vs. 2.1 h, P =0.04), longer hospitalization (8.7 vs. 6.5 d, P =0.01), and longer time to full weight-bearing (11.4 vs. 7.2 wk, P =0.03). Postoperative complications (delayed union, limb length discrepancy, infection) were similar between the 2 groups, although D group had nearly twice the rate of return to the operating room after index surgery [49% (19/39) vs. 26% (14/54), P =0.03]. Although over twice as many fractures in D group required a free flap compared with S group [18% (7/39) vs. 7% (4/54)], this did not reach statistical significance ( P >0.05). Two patients in each group eventually underwent amputation; all patients had Gustilo-Anderson IIIB or IIIC fractures. Radiographic angulation at final follow-up was similar between the 2 groups ( P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the challenges in treating open distal tibia fractures compared with open tibial shaft fractures. Families should be counselled on a possibly prolonged treatment course, both inpatient and postoperatively, when patients sustain an open distal tibia fracture.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective comparative study.