Little Z, Smith T O, McMahon S E, Cooper C, Trompeter A, Pearse M, Britten S, Rogers B, Sharma H, Narayan B, Costa M, Beard D J, Hing C B
ST5 Trauma and Orthopaedics, St Helier Hospital, Wrythe Lane, Carshalton, SM5 1AA, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Injury. 2017 Oct;48(10):2306-2310. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.014. Epub 2017 Aug 9.
Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator.
A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom's Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5).
Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important.
We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.
胫骨节段性骨折是复杂的损伤,恢复时间较长。目前的确定性治疗选择包括髓内固定或环形外固定架。然而,哪种手术选择更可取尚不确定,而且没有足够严格的多中心试验来回答这个问题。本研究的目的是确定患者和外科医生的意见是否允许进行一项随机对照试验(RCT),比较髓内钉固定与环形外固定架的应用。
在2017年英国骨科创伤学会年会上,对与会外科医生进行了一项便利问卷调查,以确定用于治疗胫骨节段性骨折的治疗方式(n = 63)。患者意见来自作为患者和公众参与焦点小组一部分接受过胫骨节段性骨折治疗的临床患者,问题涵盖手术偏好、治疗期望、结果、同意过程和随访方案等领域(n = 5)。
根据外科医生调查,39%的医生在胫骨节段性骨折后常规使用环形框架固定,而61%的医生使用髓内钉固定。81%的外科医生报告称,健康患者闭合性损伤时首选髓内钉固定,肥胖闭合性骨折患者中这一比例为86%。21%的医生表示,他们会对吸烟的糖尿病患者开放性胫骨节段性骨折使用髓内钉,而57%的医生会对伴有骨筋膜室综合征的闭合性损伤选择髓内钉,只有27%的医生会对年轻健康的运动员开放性节段性损伤使用髓内钉。患者和公众偏好调查确定,睡眠、早期功能结果和结果的心理社会指标很重要。
我们得出结论,比较髓内钉与环形外固定架确定性固定的RCT是合理的,因为胫骨节段性骨折的最佳手术管理仍存在不确定性。此外,作为此类试验的一部分,心理社会因素和术后早期结果应作为核心结果指标进行报告。