Comparative Study of Intramedullary Flexible Nailing and External Fixator Result in the Management of Fractures Tibial Shaft. (Gustilo type II, type IIIA, and type IIIB).

Susheel Kumar Soni, Sunil Patidar, Manish Bajaj, Vaibhav Mandovera
{"title":"Comparative Study of Intramedullary Flexible Nailing and External Fixator Result in the Management of Fractures Tibial Shaft. (Gustilo type II, type IIIA, and type IIIB).","authors":"Susheel Kumar Soni, Sunil Patidar, Manish Bajaj, Vaibhav Mandovera","doi":"10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i02.5310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Open tibial fractures, usually caused by high-energy trauma, are among the most common long-bone fractures. Clinically, the treatment of open tibial fractures remains a major therapeutic problem for surgeons because of the poor soft-tissue coverage and blood supply in the tibia, with resultant difficulties arising from infection and poor bone healing. In this study, we will assess the results of intramedullary flexible nailing and external fixators in the management of fractures shaft tibia (G.A. type II, IIIA, and IIIB).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-six patients who presented with open fractures of the tibial shaft type II, IIIA, and IIIB (Gustilo) were treated. We included patients of both sexes, aged between 18 and 65 years with diaphysial fractures 5 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity and at least 5 cm proximal to the tibial plafond, irrespective of fibula fracture. Thirteen patients were treated by external fixator and 13 patients by flexible intramedullary nailing and the outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age in our study was 36 years for the flexible intramedullary nailing group and 38 years for the external fixator group. Male involvement was 69.23% (18 patients) and female involvement was 30.76% (eight patients). In the present study, for external fixation mean age was 38 years (25-60), the union rate was 84.4%, the non-union rate was 16.6%, and the malunion was 33.3%, Pin track infection rate was 50%, the average time of union 27.08 weeks (26-30 weeks) and osteomyelitis is 16.6%. In the present study results for flexible intramedullary nailing, the mean age is 36 years (20-62 years), mal-union is 8.3%, pain at nail head rate is 16.6%, the average time of union is 25 weeks, and union achieved in all cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Flexible intramedullary nailing is more efficacious than external fixators in the management of fractured shaft tibia (Gustilo type II, IIIA, and IIIB). The advantages observed are maintaining limb alignment and fewer serious complications, fewer operations needed, and a better range of motion of adjacent joints obtained. It reduces the hospital stay of patients and later patients can return early to work, thus minimizing psychological trauma and financial burden. Flexible intramedullary nailing has an easy learning curve. The external fixator group had more disability and difficulties in daily routine activities such as sleeping, bathing, and other social activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":16647,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","volume":"15 2","pages":"289-294"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11823849/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i02.5310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Open tibial fractures, usually caused by high-energy trauma, are among the most common long-bone fractures. Clinically, the treatment of open tibial fractures remains a major therapeutic problem for surgeons because of the poor soft-tissue coverage and blood supply in the tibia, with resultant difficulties arising from infection and poor bone healing. In this study, we will assess the results of intramedullary flexible nailing and external fixators in the management of fractures shaft tibia (G.A. type II, IIIA, and IIIB).

Materials and methods: Twenty-six patients who presented with open fractures of the tibial shaft type II, IIIA, and IIIB (Gustilo) were treated. We included patients of both sexes, aged between 18 and 65 years with diaphysial fractures 5 cm distal to the tibial tuberosity and at least 5 cm proximal to the tibial plafond, irrespective of fibula fracture. Thirteen patients were treated by external fixator and 13 patients by flexible intramedullary nailing and the outcomes were assessed.

Results: The mean age in our study was 36 years for the flexible intramedullary nailing group and 38 years for the external fixator group. Male involvement was 69.23% (18 patients) and female involvement was 30.76% (eight patients). In the present study, for external fixation mean age was 38 years (25-60), the union rate was 84.4%, the non-union rate was 16.6%, and the malunion was 33.3%, Pin track infection rate was 50%, the average time of union 27.08 weeks (26-30 weeks) and osteomyelitis is 16.6%. In the present study results for flexible intramedullary nailing, the mean age is 36 years (20-62 years), mal-union is 8.3%, pain at nail head rate is 16.6%, the average time of union is 25 weeks, and union achieved in all cases.

Conclusion: Flexible intramedullary nailing is more efficacious than external fixators in the management of fractured shaft tibia (Gustilo type II, IIIA, and IIIB). The advantages observed are maintaining limb alignment and fewer serious complications, fewer operations needed, and a better range of motion of adjacent joints obtained. It reduces the hospital stay of patients and later patients can return early to work, thus minimizing psychological trauma and financial burden. Flexible intramedullary nailing has an easy learning curve. The external fixator group had more disability and difficulties in daily routine activities such as sleeping, bathing, and other social activities.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胫骨干骨折髓内柔性内钉与外固定架治疗效果的比较研究。(Gustilo II型,IIIA型和IIIB型)。
导读:胫骨开放性骨折是最常见的长骨骨折之一,通常由高能创伤引起。临床上,开放性胫骨骨折的治疗仍然是外科医生的一个主要治疗问题,因为胫骨软组织覆盖和血液供应不足,导致感染和骨愈合不良。在本研究中,我们将评估髓内弹性钉和外固定架治疗胫骨干骨折(ga型II、IIIA和IIIB)的结果。材料和方法:对26例II型、IIIA型和IIIB型(Gustilo)胫骨干开放性骨折患者进行治疗。我们纳入了男女患者,年龄在18 - 65岁之间,胫骨结节远端5厘米和胫骨平台近端至少5厘米的骨干骨折,与腓骨骨折无关。13例采用外固定架治疗,13例采用弹性髓内钉治疗。结果:我们的研究中,弹性髓内钉组的平均年龄为36岁,外固定架组的平均年龄为38岁。男性受累18例69.23%,女性8例30.76%。本研究外固定平均年龄38岁(25-60岁),愈合率84.4%,不愈合率16.6%,不愈合率33.3%,Pin径感染率50%,平均愈合时间27.08周(26-30周),骨髓炎16.6%。本研究结果显示,弹性髓内钉患者平均年龄36岁(20-62岁),不愈合率8.3%,钉头疼痛率16.6%,平均愈合时间25周,所有病例均愈合。结论:弹性髓内钉治疗胫骨骨干骨折(Gustilo II型、IIIA型和IIIB型)比外固定架更有效。观察到的优点是保持肢体对齐,更少的严重并发症,更少的手术需要,以及相邻关节获得更好的活动范围。它减少了患者的住院时间,之后患者可以尽早返回工作岗位,从而最大限度地减少心理创伤和经济负担。灵活髓内钉有一个容易学习的曲线。外固定架组在睡眠、洗澡和其他社交活动等日常活动中有更多的残疾和困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Distal Clavicle Refracture after All-Suture Double Coracoclavicular and Acromioclavicular Stabilization: A Case Report. Photobiomodulation Therapy Modulates Inflammatory and Cartilage Biomarkers in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Case Series. Proximal Rectus Femoris Avulsion Repair in a Collegiate Football Player: A Case Report. Comparison of Cemented Versus Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study. Day-Care Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty in Urban India: Patient Education, Apprehensions, and Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1