The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?

Hexaxial external fixator versus intramedullary nail in treating segmental tibial fractures: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

It's difficult to treat segmental tibial fractures (STFs), which are intricate injuries associated with significant soft tissue damage. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effect of hexaxial external fixator (HEF) and intramedullary nail (IMN) in treatment of STFs.

METHODS

A total of 42 patients with STFs were finally recruited between January 2018 and June 2022. There were 25 males and 17 females with age range of 20 to 60 years. All fractures were classified as type 42C2 using the Arbeitsgemeinschaftfür Osteosythese/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification. 22 patients were treated with HEF and 20 patients were treated with IMN. The condition of vascular and neural injuries, time of full weight bearing, bone union time and infection rate were documented and analyzed between the two groups. The mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), mechanical posterior proximal tibial angle (mPPTA), mechanical lateral distal tibial angle (mLDTA), mechanical anterior distal tibial angle (mADTA), hospital for special surgery (HSS) knee joint score, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle joint score, range of motion (ROM) of flexion of keen joint and ROM of plantar flexion and dorsal flexion of ankle joint were compared between the two groups at the last clinical visit.

RESULTS

There were no vascular and neural injuries or other severe complications in both groups. All 22 patients in HEF group underwent closed reduction but 3 patients in IMN group were treated by open reduction. The time of full weight bearing was (11.3 ± 3.2) days in HEF group and (67.8 ± 5.8) days in IMN group(P < 0.05), with bone union time for (6.9 ± 0.8) months and (7.7 ± 1.4) months, respectively(P < 0.05). There was no deep infection in both groups. In the HEF group and IMN group, mMPTA was (86.9 ± 1.5)° and (89.7 ± 1.8)°(P < 0.05), mPPTA was (80.8 ± 1.9)° and (78.6 ± 2.0)°(P < 0.05), mLDTA was (88.5 ± 1.7)° and (90.3 ± 1.7)°(P < 0.05), while mADTA was (80.8 ± 1.5)° and (78.4 ± 1.3)°(P < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups at the last clinical visit concerning HSS knee joint score and AOFAS ankle joint score, ROM of flexion of keen joint and ROM of plantar flexion of ankle joint (P > 0.05). The ROM of dorsal flexion of ankle joint in IMN group was (30.4 ± 3.5)°, better than (21.6 ± 2.8)° in HEF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In terms of final clinical outcomes, the use of either HEF or IMN for STFs can achieve good therapeutic effects. While HEF is superior to IMN in terms of completely closed reduction, early full weight bearing, early bone union and alignment. Nevertheless, HEF has a greater impact on the ROM of dorsal flexion of the ankle joint, and much more care and adjustment are needed for the patients than IMN.

Nail insertion points in semi-extended nailing of tibial fractures and their influence on alignment: A retrospective cohort study comparing two nail insertion techniques

INTRODUCTION

Semi-extended tibial nailing techniques include the extra-articular technique (EAT) and the patellar eversion technique (PET). These approaches differ regarding the exposure of the patellar retinaculum and the size of the surgical field. This study compared the postoperative alignment and intramedullary nailing entry points between the EAT and PET for tibial fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 54 patients (aged ≥18 years) who had undergone intramedullary nailing by the EAT (n = 29) or PET (n = 25) for a tibial shaft fracture were evaluated. The intramedullary nailing entry point and postoperative alignment were measured, and the 1-year postoperative follow-up results were compared.

RESULTS

For the EAT and PET, the intramedullary nailing entry point was located at a mean distance of 4.04 mm medial to the optimal entry point and 0.27 mm lateral to the optimal entry point, respectively. The mean angular deformation observed in anteroposterior radiographs following surgery using the EAT and PET were 2.49° and 0.32° valgus, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The intramedullary nailing entry point affected postoperative alignment. Intramedullary nailing may result in malalignment while performing the EAT due to the interference of the patella at the time of nailing.

Unattainable equipoise in randomized controlled trials : staff views of a feasibility study of surgical treatments for segmental tibial fractures

Aims

To explore staff experiences of a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nails and circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures.

Methods

A purposeful sample of 19 staff (nine surgeons) involved in the study participated in an interview. Interviews explored participants’ experience and views of the study and the treatments. The interviews drew on phenomenology, were face-to-face or by telephone, and were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

The findings identify that for the treatment of segmental tibial fractures equipoise was a theoretical ideal that was most likely unattainable in clinical practice. This was conveyed through three themes: the ambiguity of equipoise, where multiple definitions of equipoise and a belief in community equipoise were evident; an illusion of equipoise, created by strong treatment preferences and variation in collective surgical skills; and treating the whole patient, where the complexity and severity of the injury required a patient-centred approach and doing the best for the individual patient took priority over trial recruitment.

Conclusion

Equipoise can be unattainable for rare injuries such as segmental tibial fractures, where there are substantially different surgical treatments requiring specific expertise, high levels of complexity, and a concern for poor outcomes. Surgeons are familiar with community equipoise. However, a shared understanding of factors that limit the feasibility of RCTs may identify instances where community equipoise is unlikely to translate into practice.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):486–492.

Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Segmental tibial fractures are fractures in two or more areas of the tibial diaphysis resulting in a separate intercalary segment of the bone. Surgical fixation is recommended for patients with segmental tibial fractures as non-operative treatment outcomes are poor. The most common surgical interventions are intramedullary nailing (IMN) and circular frame external fixation (CFEF), but evidence about which is better is of poor quality. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine optimum treatment is required. STIFF-F aimed to assess the feasibility of a multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF for segmental tibial fracture.

METHODS

STIFF-F was a mixed-methods feasibility study comprising a pilot RCT conducted at six UK Major Trauma Centres, qualitative interviews drawing on Phenomenology and an online survey of rehabilitation. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. Patients, 16 years and over, with a segmental tibial fracture (open or closed) deemed suitable for IMN or CFEF were eligible to participate. Randomisation was stratified by site using random permuted blocks of varying sizes. Participant or assessor blinding was not possible. Interviews were undertaken with patients about their experience of injury, treatment, recovery and participation. Staff were interviewed to identify contextual factors affecting trial processes, their experience of recruitment and the treatment pathway. An online survey was developed to understand the rehabilitation context of the treatments.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were screened and three recruited to the pilot RCT. Nineteen staff and four patients participated in interviews, and 11 physiotherapists responded to the survey. This study found the following: (i) segmental tibial fractures were rarer than anticipated, (ii) the complexity of the injury, study setup times and surgeon treatment preferences impeded recruitment, (iii) recovery from a segmental tibial fracture is challenging, and rehabilitation protocols are inconsistent and (iv) despite the difficulty recruiting, staff valued this research question and strived to find a way forward.

CONCLUSION

The proposed multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF is not feasible. This study highlighted the difficulty of recruiting patients to an RCT of a complex rare injury over a short time period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry: ISRCTN11229660.