DeGenova Daniel T, Hill Zachary P, Hoffman Adam D, Taylor Avery R, Dues Boston, Faherty Mallory, Taylor Benjamin C
Department of Orthopedics, OhioHealth, Columbus, Ohio.
Department of Foot and Ankle Surgery, OhioHealth, Columbus, Ohio.
Foot Ankle Spec. 2024 May 10:19386400241249583. doi: 10.1177/19386400241249583.
As an alternative to traditional open reduction internal fixation of ankle fragility fractures, primary retrograde tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing has been investigated as a treatment option. These results suggest that this treatment is an acceptable alternative treatment option for these injuries. There are still questions about the need for formal joint preparation at the subtalar or tibiotalar joint when performing primary TTC nailing for fragility fractures.
In this study, we retrospectively evaluated 32 patients treated with primary retrograde TTC nail without subtalar or tibiotalar joint preparation for a mean of 2.4 years postoperatively. We specifically reviewed the charts for nail breakages at either joint, patients developing subtalar or tibiotalar joint pathology requiring additional treatment, including return to the operating room for formal joint preparation.
Fracture union occurred in 100% of patients. There were 3 cases (10.0%) of hardware failure, and 2 of these cases were asymptomatic and did not require any treatment. One patient (3.3%) developed hardware failure with nail breakage at the subtalar joint. This patient developed progressive pain and symptoms requiring revision surgery with formal arthrodesis of the subtalar and tibiotalar joint.
This study shows that retrograde hindfoot nailing without formal subtalar or tibiotalar joint preparation is an acceptable potential treatment option in ankle fragility fractures. Mid-term follow-up demonstrates favorable outcomes without the need for formal joint preparation in this high-risk population. Comparative studies with higher patient numbers and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this study. Level IV.
作为踝关节脆性骨折传统切开复位内固定术的替代方法,一期逆行胫距跟(TTC)髓内钉固定已作为一种治疗选择进行了研究。这些结果表明,这种治疗方法是这些损伤可接受的替代治疗选择。对于脆性骨折行一期TTC髓内钉固定时,距下关节或胫距关节是否需要进行正规的关节准备仍存在疑问。
在本研究中,我们回顾性评估了32例接受一期逆行TTC髓内钉固定且未进行距下关节或胫距关节准备的患者,术后平均随访2.4年。我们特别查阅了病历,以了解任一关节处的髓内钉断裂情况、出现距下关节或胫距关节病变需要额外治疗(包括返回手术室进行正规关节准备)的患者情况。
所有患者骨折均愈合。有3例(10.0%)出现内固定失败,其中2例无症状,无需任何治疗。1例患者(3.3%)出现内固定失败,距下关节处髓内钉断裂。该患者出现进行性疼痛和症状,需要行翻修手术,对距下关节和胫距关节进行正规关节融合术。
本研究表明,对于踝关节脆性骨折,不进行正规距下关节或胫距关节准备的逆行后足髓内钉固定是一种可接受的潜在治疗选择。中期随访显示,在这一高风险人群中,无需进行正规关节准备即可获得良好疗效。需要进行更高患者数量和长期随访的对比研究来证实本研究结果。四级。