Is device-assisted reduction prior to semi-extended intramedullary nailing of distal tibial fractures necessary?

IntroductionTraditional methods of nailing distal tibial fractures have an unacceptable risk of mal-alignment due to difficulty in obtaining and maintaining reduction intra-operatively. Methods to obtain and maintain reduction when nailing these fractures, and therefore reducing the risk of Mal-alignment include modified external fixators, distractors and commercial reduction tools. Semi-extended intramedullary nailing of distal tibial fractures via a supra-patellar approach is now being used more commonly. The aim of this study was to assess whether a commercial reduction device (Staffordshire Orthopaedic Reduction Machine − STORM, Intelligent Orthopaedics, Stafffordshire, UK) is necessary to reduce the risk of mal-alignment in patients undergoing semi-extended nailing for distal tibial fractures.MethodologyA case-control study was conducted in 20 patients who had STORM-assisted reduction of distal tibial fractures prior to intramedullary nailing and 20 controls without STORM. The control group was matched for age, sex, fracture type (AO/OTA), ASA and gender. All patients had an intramedullary nail (IMN) using the semi-extended system. Primary outcome measures were coronal and sagittal mal-alignment. Secondary outcome measure was unplanned return to theatre for complications and problems with fracture healing.ResultsThere was no difference in post-operative mal-alignment in both groups. There was no significant difference in time to union in both groups Both groups had equal number of patients requiring unplanned return to theatre. The STORM group was associated with a significantly increased operative time [p = 0.007, 130.3 min (SD 49.4) STORM vs 95.6 mins (SD 22.9) Control].ConclusionIntraoperative use of STORM significantly increases operative time with no difference in outcome. The superior orthogonal views and manual control obtained during semi-extended nailing via a supra-patellar approach obviate the need for additional methods: of intraoperative reduction for this fracture group.     

Is distal locking of long nails for intertrochanteric fractures necessary? A clinical study

Background

Few clinical studies have examined the utility of distal interlocking nails when fixing intertrochanteric fractures with intramedullary devices. In this study we performed a retrospective analysis comparing fixation method of intertrochanteric fractures with either a long unlocked cephalomedullary nail versus a long locked cephalomedullary nail. Our hypothesis was there would be no difference in device related failures or complications in stable intertrochanteric fractures treated with long locked or long unlocked cephalomedullary nails.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed of all stable intertrochanteric fractures treated with a long cephalomedullary nail between 2006 and 2012 at our institution. Clinical history as well as perioperative radiography was carefully reviewed for all subjects. AO classification, the use of locked or unlocked technique, and failure status was recorded.

Results

Overall, a device related failure rate of 1.8% (2/107) was observed for stable intertrochanteric fractures treated with long cephalomedullary nails. No statistical difference in failure rate was found between locked and unlocked nails within our studied population (0% long locked (0/56) versus 3.9% long unlocked (2/51), p = 0.224).

Conclusion

This clinical study supports our hypothesis that long cephalomedullary nails do not need to be locked for stable intertrochanteric fractures. We found no difference in failure rates between the two approaches across 107 patients.     

Intramedullary tibial nailing of distal tibiofibular fractures: additional fibular fixation or not?

Introduction

The anatomy of the distal tibia accounts for reduced biomechanical stability and higher complication rates when treating distal tibiofibular fractures with an intramedullary tibia nail (IMTN). The goal of this study was to identify variables that affect the stability of IMTN. We assessed the value of additional fibular fixation, angular stable interlocking screws (ASLS) and multiplanar screw configuration in IMTN.

Patients and methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed including 184 distal tibial fractures and associated fibula fracture treated with IMTN. Relevant demographic, fracture-related (type and level of the tibia and fibula fracture) and operative variables (depth of the nail, screw type and configuration, use of polar screws, fibular fixation) were studied. Coronal and sagittal alignment was assessed directly and 3–6 months after IMTN. Loss of reduction (LOR) was classified as 5–9° or ≥10°.

Results

48.4% of the patients showed ≥5° LOR in one or both planes. Coronal LOR 5°–9° significantly correlated with low tibial fractures (p = 0.034), AO/OTA type 43 distal tibial fractures (p = 0.049), and sagittal LOR 5°–9° (p = 0.015). Although sagittal LOR 5°–9° was associated with fibular fractures (non-fixated suprasyndesmotic, p = 0.011), conversely we could not demonstrate the added value of (suprasyndesmotic) fibula fixation in IMTN. Coronal LOR ≥10° significantly correlated with AO/OTA type 43 distal tibial fractures (p = 0.009). In contrast to multiplanar configuration, we found a clear benefit of ASLS in distal IMTN locking.

Conclusions

The level of the tibial fracture (AO/OTA type) and (suprasyndesmotic) fibular fractures were the main determinants of LOR after IMTN. ASLS was found to increase the stability of IMTN. Due to heterogeneity, however, we could not demonstrate the value of fibular fixation in IMTN. Therefore, a future prospective study with uniform treatment strategy for IMTN of distal tibiofibular fractures, with or without fixation of the fibula, is mandatory.

     

The treatment of distal third humeral diaphyseal fractures: Is there still a place for the external fixation?

Introduction

The treatment for humeral diaphyseal fractures is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of treating humeral distal third diaphyseal fractures by using external fixation technique.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively review 65 cases of diaphyseal humeral fractures (31 type A, 23 type B and 11 type C of the AO/OTA classification) treated with external fixation (Orthofix FAD small) between 2008 and 2013. The mean follow-up was 48 months (24–72 months). There were 12 open fractures; however, no cases of concomitant vascular injury were described. The transolecranic traction was always applied to promote partial reduction through ligamentotaxis. In case of interposition of soft tissues impeding reduction, a small incision was performed allowing mobilization of bone ends.

Results

All fractures resulted healed at a mean of 11 weeks (range 9–13 weeks); the average time of removal of the external fixator was 88 days (range 65–95 days). At the last follow-up, the mean elbow flexion was 132.6° (Min 126°–Max 137°) and the mean elbow extension was 6.4° (Max 0°–Min 13°). The Cassebaum’s index rated as excellent in 47.8 % (31 patients), good in 37 % (24 patients), fair in 9.2 % (6 patients) and poor in 6 % (4 patients). The mean DASH score at the final follow-up was 14.7 (range 0–33); 15 patients had a range score between 10 and 20, 43 had less than 10, and seven had more than 20. We observed three cases of superficial infections and two cases of acute radial nerve palsy recovered within 3 months.

Conclusion

According to the excellent clinical results and full rate of consolidation, we state external fixation as a valid option in the treatment of distal third humeral diaphyseal fractures.

     

Intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures: how often are post-operative radiographs needed?

A series of 53 closed tibial fractures were treated with interlocking intramedullary nailing. Excluding the routine postoperative radiographs at the time of surgery, a median number of seven radiographs were taken per patient (range 2-13). In total, 343 radiographs were taken after the postoperative film. Of these 343 radiographs, only nine (3%) radiographs led to a decision for clinical intervention. No radiograph in the first 10 weeks after surgery changed management. A reduction in the use of post-operative radiography after tibial nailing is recommended.     

Is MIPO in humeral shaft fractures really safe? Postoperative ultrasonographic evaluation

In the last few years there has been great interest in minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. None of these studies showed the anatomical relationship between the radial nerve and the material of the implant in vivo. We performed postoperative ultrasonographic measurement of the distance between the radial nerve and the material implanted using the MIPO technique. Nineteen patients underwent postoperative ultrasound examinations. Group A comprised midshaft fractures and group B distal third fractures. The point of greatest proximity between the radial nerve and the implant was measured. In group A the distance was between 1.6 and 19.6 mm (mean: 9.3 mm) and in group B between 1.0 and 8.1 mm (mean: 4.0 mm). The ultrasound findings reveal that the radial nerve is quite close to the implant material, especially in the transition between the third and fourth quarters of the humeral shaft.     

Is early mobilization after volar locking plate fixation in distal radius fractures really beneficial? A meta-analysis of prospective randomized studies

Study designThis was a systematic review with a meta-analysis.IntroductionDespite rising trends toward surgical treatment of distal radius fractures (DRF) with volar locking plate (VLP) fixation, there is a lack of consensus on when to start vigorous wrist range of motion (ROM) exercises after surgery.PurposeWe performed a meta-analysis to compare early and late mobilization after VLP fixation in patients with DRF.MethodsFour prospective randomized controlled trials with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up were retrieved through MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the KoreaMed databases in March 2021. We divided patients into an early group (patients who started ROM exercises of the wrist within 2 weeks after surgery), and a late group (patients who started ROM exercises 5 or 6 weeks after surgery). The primary outcome was treatment efficacy which was measured through improvement in pain score, function score, ROM, and grip power. The secondary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 127 patients in the early group and 131 patients in the late group. The outcomes were compared at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. There was no significant difference in pain score, though the early group had a lower average visual analog scale score. The early group had a lower arm, shoulder, and hand disability score than the late group (95 % CI, -16.25 to -8.35 points; P < .001) at 6 weeks postoperatively, suggesting significantly superior outcomes. A similar trend persisted at 3 (n = 74 in the early group and n = 77 in the late group; 95% CI, -5.45 to -0.30; P = .029) and 6 months (n = 102 in the early group and n = 100 in the late group; 95% CI, -4.81 to 0.21; P = .073), but the differences were smaller. The early group had a higher grip power at all follow-up periods, but the difference was only significant at 6 months postoperatively (n = 88 in the early group and n = 83 in the late group; 95% CI, 0.50 to 6.99; P = 0.024). The early group also had more favorable ROM in all directions at 6 weeks, but only in supination at 6 months. The complication rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups. There were no differences in the rates of secondary operation and reduction loss.ConclusionEarly ROM exercise after VLP in DRF resulted in superior functional scores and grip power until 6 months postoperatively. The dominance of the joint ROM, which was seen at 6 weeks after surgery in the early exercise group, decreased with time and ultimately showed little difference at 6 months. Early exercise is safe and did not increase complication rates.     

Proximal humeral fractures in geriatric patients. Is the angle-stable plate osteosynthesis really a breakthrough?

This is a retrospective study of the results of angle-stable plating of displaced 3- or 4- part fractures of the proximal humerus in 92 geriatric patients treated between 2/2000 and 2/2004. At final follow-up patients were clinically evaluated using the Constant-Murley score and were examined radiologically. The mean non-age-related Constant-Murley score was 69.8 points. A clear correlation was found between the final score and the quality of reposition of the tuberosities and/or plate position. Accurate reduction and plate positioning led to a significantly better functional result. For 28 patients (30.4%), sinkage of the humeral head into the shaft occurred despite angle-stable anchoring. The currently celebrated angle-stabilising plates did not lead to a significant improvement in functional outcome, compared with other established osteosynthesis procedures.     

Is retrograde nailing superior to lateral locked plating for complete articular distal femur fractures?

IntroductionNonunion rates for distal femur fractures treated with lateral locked plating (LLP) remains as high as 18–22% despite significant advances with implant design and construct modulation. However, whether treatment of distal femur fractures with rIMN has improved outcomes compared to LLP has not been well characterized. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of complete articular distal femur fractures (AO/OTA 33-C) treated with either LLP or rIMN.Methods106 distal femur fractures in 106 patients between January 2014 and January 2018 were identified. Medical records were reviewed to collect patient age, gender, body mass index, sagittal and coronal plane alignment on immediate postoperative radiographs, time to union, incidence of nonunion, and incidence of secondary operative procedures for repair of a nonunion.ResultsOf 106 patients, 50 underwent rIMN and 56 underwent LLP. The mean age at the time of injury was 51 years (21 to 86 years) and there were 55 males. Average coronal alignment of 83.7° of anatomic lateral distal femoral angle (aLDFA) and sagittal alignment of <1° of apex anterior angulation in the rIMN group. In the LLP group there was an average of 87.9° of aLDFA and 1.9° of apex anterior angulation (p = .005 and p = .36). Average time to union in the rIMN group was 6 months and 6.6 months in the LLP group (p = .52). Incidence of nonunion in the rIMN group was 11.8% and 27.5% in the LLP group (p = .008). There were 8 secondary procedures for nonunion in the rIMN group and 18 in the LLP group (p = .43).ConclusionsOur results demonstrated a higher nonunion rate and coronal plane malalignment with LLP compared to rIMN. While prospective data is required, rIMN does appear to be an appropriate treatment for complete articular distal femur fractures with a potentially decreased rate of nonunion .     

Fibula fixation in the treatment of tibial pilon fractures – Is it really necessary?

BackgroundThere is a lack of consensus about the role of fibula fixation in these complex fractures, with only two clinical studies in the literature. We hypothesize that the fibula fracture need not be fixed in the tibial pilon fractures if primary stability can be achieved with tibial fixation alone.MethodsWe reviewed 79 patients with operatively treated tibial pilon with associated fibula fractures from 2007 to 2017 and divided them into two groups; patients with fibula fracture fixation and those without fixation. The primary outcome measure was any mechanical complications. Secondary outcomes were wound complications and other morbidities.ResultsThere were 54 (68.4%) patients with fibula fixation and 25 (31.6%) patients without fixation. There were no statistically significant differences in mechanical complications between the two groups. However, patients without fibula fixation were noted to have more wound complications (44% vs 25.9%, p = 0.108) although this was not statistically significant. In terms of removal of implant (ROI), there were no differences noted in patients with or without fibula fixation (33.3% vs 28%, p = 0.796). There were also no significant differences in ROI for those fixed with plate and screws when compared to those fixed with Rush rod and K wire within the group with fibula fixation.ConclusionFibula fixation in the treatment of tibial pilon fractures is not routinely necessary and does not result in decreased mechanical complications such as malunion, delayed union, nonunion and implant failure. Fibula fracture fixation should be reserved for cases where it may aid reduction or provide additional stability.     

Is there a benefit of proximal locking screws in osteoporotic distal radius fractures? – A biomechanical study

IntroductionThe distal radial fracture is a common fracture and frequently seen in geriatric patients. During the last years, volar plating has become a popular treatment option. While the application of locking screws at the distal fragment is widely accepted, there is no evidence for their use at the radial shaft.Materials and methodsIn six osteoporotic pairs of matched human cadaver radii an extra-articular model creating an AO 23-A2.1 fracture was employed. Osteosynthesis were performed using the APTUS 2.5 Adaptive TriLock Distal Radius System (Medartis AG) with locking (LS) or non-locking screws (NLS) for proximal fixation. Biomechanical testing was performed in a staircase fashion: starting with 50 cycles at 200 N, the load was continuously increased by 50 N every 80 cycles up to a maximum force of 400 N. Finally, load to failure was analyzed with failure defined as sudden loss of force measured (20%) or major deformation of the radii (10 mm).ResultsAt 200 N, 250 N, 300 N, 400 N and load to failure, the NLS group showed a higher degree of elastic modulus. In contrast, the LS group showed higher elastic modulus at 350 N. Maximum force was higher in the LS group without reaching statistical significance. Reasons for loss of fixation were longitudinal shaft fractures, horizontal peri-implant fractures and distal cutting out. No difference was seen between the two groups concerning the development of the above mentioned complications.ConclusionOur study did not show biomechanical superiority for distal radius fracture fixation by using locking screws in the proximal holes in an osteoporotic cadaver study. At load to failure, longitudinal shaft fractures and peri-implant fractures seemed to be a more relevant problem rather than failure of the proximal fixation.     

Diaphyseal humeral fractures and intramedullary nailing: Can we improve outcomes?

While intramedullary nailing has been established as the treatment of choice for diaphyseal fractures of the femur and tibia, its role in the management of diaphyseal humeral fractures remains controversial. The reasons include not only the complicated anatomy and unique biomechanical characteristics of the arm but also the fact that surgical technique and nail designs devised for the treatment of femoral and tibial fractures are being transposed to the humerus. As a result there is no consensus on many aspects of the humeral nailing procedure, e.g., the basic nail design, nail selection criteria, timing of the procedure, and the fundamental principles of the surgical technique (e.g., antegrade/retrograde, reamed/unreamed, and static/dynamic). These issues will be analyzed and discussed in the present article. Proposals aiming to improve outcomes include the categorization of humeral nails in two distinct groups: “fixed” and “bio”, avoidance of reaming for the antegrade technique and utilization of “semi-reaming” for the retrograde technique, guidelines for reducing complications, setting the best “timing” for nailing and criteria for selecting the most appropriate surgical technique (antegrade or retrograde). Finally, suggestions are made on proper planning and conducting clinical and biomechanical studies regarding the use of intramedullary nailing in the management of humeral shaft fractures.     

Does fibular plating improve alignment after intramedullary nailing of distal metaphyseal tibia fractures?

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether supplementary fibular fixation helped maintain axial alignment in distal metaphyseal tibia-fibula fractures treated by locked intramedullary nailing. DESIGN: Retrospective chart and radiographic review. SETTING: Three, level 1, trauma centers. PATIENTS: Distal metaphyseal tibia-fibula fractures were separated into 2 groups based on the presence of adjunctive fibular plating. Group 1 consisted of fractures treated with small fragment plate fixation of the fibula and intramedullary (IM) nailing of the tibia, whereas group 2 consisted of fractures treated with IM nailing of the tibia without fibular fixation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Malalignment of the tibial shaft was defined as 1) >5 degrees of varus/valgus angulation, or 2) >10 degrees anterior/posterior angulation. Measures of angulation were obtained from radiographs taken immediately after the surgery, a second time 3 months later, and at 6-month follow-up. Leg length and rotational deformity were not examined. RESULTS: Seventy-two fractures were studied. In 25 cases, the associated fibula fracture was stabilized, and in 47 cases the associated fibula fracture was not stabilized. Cases were more likely to have the associated fibula fracture stabilized where the tibia fracture was very distal. In multivariate adjusted analysis, plating of the fibula fracture was significantly associated with maintenance of reduction 12 weeks or later after surgery (odds ratio = 0.03; P = 0.036). The use of 2 medial-lateral distal locking bolts also was protective against loss of reduction; however, this association was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.29; P = 0.275). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the proportion of fractures that lost alignment was smaller among those receiving stabilization of the fibula in conjunction with IM nailing compared with those receiving IM nailing alone. Adjunctive fibular stabilization was associated significantly with the ability to maintain fracture reduction beyond 12 weeks. At the present time, the authors recommend fibular plating whenever IM nailing is contemplated in the unstable distal tibia-fibular fracture.     

Compression plating versus intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures—a meta-analysis

Background?The choice of plates or intramedullary nails for operatively treated humeral shaft fractures remains controversial, since randomized controlled trials have lacked sufficient power. A meta-analysis of existing trials would improve inferences regarding the treatment effect.

Methods?We reviewed randomized trials in Medline, Cochrane and SciSearch, along with other sources of published randomized trials from 1969–2000. Of 215 citations identified, only 3 studies were included.

Results?The 3 studies (involving 155 patients) were pooled, since they were homogeneous (p > 0.1). Plate fixation gave a lower relative risk of reoperation than intramedullary nailing (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.007–0.9, p = 0.03). This translated to a risk reduction of 74% for reoperation when plate fixation was employed. Thus, 1 reoperation could be prevented for every 10 patients treated with plates. Plate fixation also reduced the risk of shoulder problems in comparison to intramedullary nails (RR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.03–0.4, p = 0.002).

Interpretation?Plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures may reduce the risk of reoperation and shoulder impingement. The cumulative evidence remains inconclusive, and a larger trial is needed in order to confirm these findings.     

Surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Is the T-plate still adequate osteosynthesis procedure?

No general agreement exists on the operative therapy of displaced proximal humeral fractures. The purpose of this study is to evaluate different internal fixation techniques (plate fixation, figure-of-eight tension wiring, lagscrew) and to verify if the plate fixation is still an adequate therapy in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures. A follow-up investigation was conducted in 51 patients after an average of 4.2 years. A T-plate fixation was performed in 62.7%, a minimal invasive technique in 21.6% and a shoulder prosthesis in 15.7% of these patients. At follow-up 60.7% of the patients with a 3- or 4-part fracture had good or excellent results in the Constant score (59% T-plate, 66% minimal invasive). Humeral head necrosis was seen in 15.9% of the patients with a T-plate fixation and in 9.1% of the patients with minimal invasive techniques. Based on our results and the reviewed literature we can confirm advantages of the minimal invasive techniques in the treatment of 4-part fractures. However, good results can be obtained with T-plate fixation in 2- or 3-part fractures especially in younger patients.     

Is volar locking plate superior to external fixation for distal radius fractures? A comprehensive meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and retrospective cohort studies (CS) regarding the use of volar locking plate (VLP) and external fixation (EF) in distal radius fractures was to determine whether there was any evidence that one treatment was superior to the other.

Timing of diaphyseal femur fracture nailing: Is the difference night and day?

Introduction

Most hospitals are faced with reduced personnel, resources, and provider fatigue or shift changes when day turns to night. For these reasons, some have suggested that diaphyseal femur fractures should be fixed during the daytime. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the time of surgery affects the post-operative difference in femoral version (DFV) and femoral length (DFL) between the fixed and uninjured sides following intramedullary nailing (IMN).

Materials and methods

Over a 10-year period, 340 patients underwent IMN of a diaphyseal femur fracture (AO types 32-A to C) with a post-operative computed tomography scanogram for version measurement. Demographic and surgical data, including time operated was collected. “Daytime” was defined as 7:00 AM to 6:59 PM, while the remainder of the clock was “nighttime”. Additionally, the night hours were split into 3 consecutive 4-h categories for further analysis. Stepwise, multivariate regressions were used to evaluate any effect of time of surgery on post-operative DFV or DFL. Other variables included in these statistical models were age, sex, mechanism of injury, open vs. closed fracture, trauma vs. non-trauma surgeon, and AO and Winquist classifications.

Results

Overall, 22.4% (76/340) of all fractures were fixed at night. The mean post-operative DFV and DFL from the uninjured side in these patients was 8.9° and 4.1 mm, respectively, compared to 9.0° and 4.8 mm in those treated during the daytime. This difference was not statistically significant when accounting for other factors (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in patients with >10 mm limb length discrepancy or >15 degrees DFV (p = 1.0 for both).

Conclusion

The time of day at which diaphyseal femur fractures are treated does not have an impact on post-operative femoral version or length. While certain other injuries may be better handled during daytime hours, acceptable IMN of mid-shaft femur fractures may be achieved during all hours at a level 1 trauma centre.