Lindvall Eric, Sanders Roy, Dipasquale Thomas, Herscovici Dolfi, Haidukewych George, Sagi Claude
Department of Orthopaedics, Community Regional Medical Center, UCSF-Fresno, 7th Floor W, 2823 Fresno St, Fresno, CA 93721, USA.
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 Aug;23(7):485-92. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181b013d2.
To compare extra-articular proximal tibial fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) or percutaneous locked plating (PLP) and assess the ability of each technique to obtain and maintain fracture reduction.
Retrospective clinical study.
: Level 1 Trauma Center.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Beginning with the first use of PLP of the proximal tibia at our institution, all skeletally mature patients with surgically treated proximal extra-articular tibial fractures were reviewed. Between August 1999 and June 2004, 29 patients treated with intramedullary nails and 43 patients treated with percutaneous locked plates were identified. Patients with at least 1-year follow-up included 22 IMN and 34 PLP cases, which formed the final study group.
Final outcomes were assessed for the IMN and the PLP groups by comparing rates of union, malunion, malreduction (defined as >5 degrees angulation in any plane), infection, and removal of implants.
The IMN and PLP groups showed similar age and gender demographics. Average length of follow-up was 3.4 years in the IMN group (15-67 months) and 2.7 years in the PLP group (12-66 months). Open fractures made up 55% of the IMN group and 35% of the PLP group. Final union rates (after additional procedures for nonunions after the index procedure) were similar between groups (IMN = 96% and PLP = 97%). Implant removal in the PLP group was 3 times greater than in the IMN group, (P = 0.390), whereas an apex anterior (procurvatum) malreduction deformity occurred twice as frequently in the IMN group (P = 0.103). Additional surgical techniques (eg, blocking screws) were frequently used during reduction within the IMN group and infrequently used within the PLP group (P = 0.0002). Neither technique resulted in a statistically significant loss of final reduction confirming the stability of each construct.
Neither IMN or PLP showed a distinct advantage in the treatment of proximal extra-articular tibial fractures. Apex anterior malreduction however was the most prevalent form of malreduction in both groups. Additional surgical reduction techniques were frequently needed with IMN, whereas removal of implants seems to be more commonly needed with PLP.
比较采用髓内钉(IMN)或经皮锁定钢板(PLP)治疗的胫骨近端关节外骨折,并评估每种技术实现和维持骨折复位的能力。
回顾性临床研究。
一级创伤中心。
患者/参与者:从我院首次使用胫骨近端PLP开始,对所有接受手术治疗的胫骨近端关节外骨折的骨骼成熟患者进行回顾。在1999年8月至2004年6月期间,确定了29例接受髓内钉治疗的患者和43例接受经皮锁定钢板治疗的患者。至少随访1年的患者包括22例IMN病例和34例PLP病例,这些病例组成了最终研究组。
通过比较愈合率、畸形愈合率、复位不良(定义为任何平面成角>5度)、感染率和植入物取出率,评估IMN组和PLP组的最终结局。
IMN组和PLP组在年龄和性别分布上相似。IMN组平均随访时间为3.4年(15 - 67个月),PLP组为2.7年(12 - 66个月)。开放性骨折在IMN组中占55%,在PLP组中占35%。两组的最终愈合率(在初次手术后对未愈合进行额外手术后)相似(IMN = 96%,PLP = 97%)。PLP组的植入物取出率比IMN组高3倍(P = 0.390),而IMN组中顶点向前(前凸)复位不良畸形的发生率是PLP组的两倍(P = 0.103)。在IMN组复位过程中经常使用额外的手术技术(如阻挡螺钉),而在PLP组中很少使用(P = 0.0002)。两种技术均未导致最终复位出现统计学上的显著丢失,证实了每种固定结构的稳定性。
在治疗胫骨近端关节外骨折方面,IMN和PLP均未显示出明显优势。然而,顶点向前复位不良是两组中最常见的复位不良形式。IMN经常需要额外的手术复位技术,而PLP似乎更常需要取出植入物。