Reamed versus unreamed nail in the treatment of tibia shaft fractures
Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
26816245
DOI
10.1007/s00068-013-0340-0
PII: 10.1007/s00068-013-0340-0
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Reamed nail, Tibia shaft fracture, Unreamed nail,
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
PURPOSE: The aim of the prospective randomized study was to compare the results of the treatment of tibia shaft fractures (TSF) by reamed or unreamed intramedullar nail. METHODS: There were 103 patients with 104 TSF enrolled in the study within the period from December 2005 to June 2010. Seven patients were excluded from the study. Factors of injury severity, course of surgery and hospitalization, and incidence of early and delayed complications were recorded. X-ray was performed every 4 weeks until the fracture was healed. Functional results were evaluated at least 1 year after the surgery. Closed fractures were classified according to Tscherne classification and the open ones according to Gustilo classification. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients with 49 TSF were treated by unreamed tibial nail. There were 15 women and 33 men in this group. Injury severity score (ISS) ranged from 4 to 25 (ø 6.63). There were 45 closed fractures (0 16; I 22; II 7) and four open fractures (I 2; II 1; IIIA 1). In the reamed nail group there were 48 TSF. ISS ranged from 4 to 18 (ø 6.13). There were 35 closed (0 17; I 13; II 5) and 13 open (I 5; II 5; IIIA 3) fractures in this group. The time of operation was on average 15 min shorter in the unreamed nail group. X-ray healing was the same in both groups (18.12 versus 17.92 weeks). We had four patients in the unreamed nail group and six patients in the reamed nail group with delayed healing (28-44 weeks). We recorded no infection, loss of reduction or re-operation in both groups. Follow-up of functional results was 90 %. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in clinical and functional results between the groups. We suggest that both methods are comparable.
Department of Emergency Medicine University Hospital Hradec Kralove Czech Republic
Department of Surgery University Hospital Hradec Kralove Czech Republic
See more in PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Nov;82(8):1113-6 PubMed
J Trauma. 1995 Aug;39(2):351-5 PubMed
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1990;109(6):314-6 PubMed
J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Feb;18(2):96-101 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Apr;71(4):599-606 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Dec;90(12):2567-78 PubMed
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2008 Aug;75(4):241-6 PubMed
J Trauma. 2008 Jun;64(6):1511-6 PubMed
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2008 Feb;75(1):52-60 PubMed
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1997 Oct;42(5):334-8 PubMed
Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1999;58(1):24-30 PubMed
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Nov;(368):230-9 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Jan;83(1):62-8 PubMed
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2010 Jun;77(3):235-41 PubMed
J Trauma. 1985 Jan;25(1):60-4 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Jul;78(4):580-3 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Mar;79(3):334-41 PubMed
J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Jan;14(1):2-9 PubMed
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1998 Dec;43(6):374-80 PubMed
J Orthop Trauma. 2000 Mar-Apr;14 (3):187-93 PubMed
Br J Hosp Med. 1997 Jun 4-17;57(11):582-7 PubMed