Do Poller screws effect union in tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing? |
| |
Institution: | 1. Department of Joint Surgery, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215300, China;2. Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215300, China;1. Department of Orthopedic department, E. Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel;2. Sackler school of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-aviv, Israel |
| |
Abstract: | IntroductionTibial shaft fractures are a commonly encountered challenge presented to orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is often the treatment of choice and whilst effective, complications of delayed and/or non-union can cause significant morbidity and necessitate additional operative procedures. The use of Poller screws during IMN are a recognised way of aiding fracture reduction, however the clinical benefits of this are debated. This study evaluated the outcome of tibial shaft fractures treated with IMN with or without the addition of Poller screws.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing IMN following tibial shaft fractures over a 5-year period. 154 operated tibial shaft fractures were identified, with patients divided into 3 groups - Group 1: IM nailing alone, Group 2: IMN + 1 conventional Poller screw, or Group 3: IMN + 2 Poller screws placed Epicentrically across the fracture site. Data collected included demographics, length of stay, fracture type, position and AO classification grade, operative time, and operating surgeons' grade. Primary outcome measure was the incidence of delayed and/or non-union. Secondary outcomes were differences in rates of infection and additional orthopaedic procedures between the 3 groups.ResultsOverall 139/154 fractures (90.3%) achieved a timely union. There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.05) in fracture union between the 3 groups, with 75/88 fractures healing in group 1 (IMN alone) compared to 44/46 in Group 2 (IMN + 1 Poller screw) and 20/20 in group 3 (IMN + 2 Poller screws). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of superficial infection, (p = 0.95) additional procedures (p = 0.23) or deep infection (p = 0.65) between the 3 groups.ConclusionThe addition of Poller screws appear to be a safe and effective adjunct in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures via IMN. Further prospective randomised trials are needed to fully elucidate both the role and potential benefits of Poller screw augmentation in acute lower limb fracture management. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|