Morelli Federico, Princi Giorgio, Caperna Ludovico, Di Niccolo Riccardo, Cantagalli Matteo Romano, Mazza Daniele, Ferretti Andrea
Department of Trauma and Orthopedics, Sapienza University of Rome, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2023;11(5):337-341. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2023.64745.314.
The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate if Rush nail fixation still has a role in distal fibular fractures surgery compared with locking plate in terms of fixation quality, complications, functional results and patient satisfaction level.
This study included 109 patients (average age 56.05), who had undergone operative treatment for bi- or trimalleolar fractures between 2009 and 2014. The patients were evaluated retrospectively, divided in group A (57 patients treated with Rush nail) and group B (52 patients treated with locking plate). The patients were evaluated at an average 4.9 years of follow-up (SD: 1.01) with Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society - Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for clinical outcomes. X-rays were conducted to assess ankle osteoarthritis using the classification system by Takakura and joint space symmetry using measurements in comparison with contralateral ankles.
The groups were homogeneous regarding age and gender. Patients treated with Rush Nail fixation (Group A) showed statistically significant worse clinical results at functional scores (78.1 Group A versus 88.7 Group B at the OMAS (); 83.1 Group A versus 90.1 Group B at the AOFAS (); higher pain levels in the VAS (3.9 Group A versus 2.4 Group B) and lower satisfaction rates (52.6% Group A versus 73.1% Group B ()) in comparison with patients treated with locking plate fixation (Group B). However, infections rate was significantly lower in Group A (1.8%) than in Group B (9.6%) (). Radiographic evaluation showed more cases of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in Group A (35.1% Group A versus 15.4% Group B ()) and worse results in regards to restoration of joint space symmetry (45.6% Group A versus 73.1% Group B ()).
Results of current study indicates that even though plating of lateral malleolus in bimalleolar and trimalleolar fractures is superior in fracture reduction quality, early functional recovery, reduced incidence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and greater patient satisfaction, Rush nail fixation still provides acceptable clinical results with a lower infection rate. Therefore Rush nails could be considered as a valid choice in selected patients with high risk of soft tissue complications or low functional demand.
本回顾性研究旨在评估与锁定钢板相比,Rush钉固定在治疗腓骨远端骨折手术中,在固定质量、并发症、功能结果及患者满意度方面是否仍具有作用。
本研究纳入了109例患者(平均年龄56.05岁),这些患者在2009年至2014年间接受了双踝或三踝骨折的手术治疗。对患者进行回顾性评估,分为A组(57例采用Rush钉治疗)和B组(52例采用锁定钢板治疗)。采用奥勒鲁德-莫兰德踝关节评分(OMAS)、美国矫形足踝协会-踝-后足评分(AOFAS)和视觉模拟评分(VAS)对患者进行平均4.9年的随访(标准差:1.01),以评估临床结果。通过X线检查,采用高仓分类系统评估踝关节骨关节炎情况,并通过与对侧踝关节测量比较来评估关节间隙对称性。
两组在年龄和性别方面具有同质性。与采用锁定钢板固定的患者(B组)相比,采用Rush钉固定的患者(A组)在功能评分方面临床结果显著更差(OMAS评分:A组为78.1分,B组为88.7分;AOFAS评分:A组为83.1分,B组为90.1分);VAS疼痛评分更高(A组为3.9分,B组为2.4分),满意度更低(A组为52.6%,B组为73.1%)。然而,A组的感染率(1.8%)显著低于B组(9.6%)。影像学评估显示,A组创伤后骨关节炎的病例更多(A组为35.1%,B组为15.4%),在关节间隙对称性恢复方面结果更差(A组为45.6%,B组为73.1%)。
本研究结果表明,尽管在双踝和三踝骨折中,外侧踝钢板固定在骨折复位质量、早期功能恢复、创伤后骨关节炎发生率降低及患者满意度更高方面具有优势,但Rush钉固定仍能提供可接受的临床结果,且感染率更低。因此,对于软组织并发症风险高或功能需求低的特定患者,Rush钉可被视为一种有效的选择。