34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Open tibial shaft fractures. Treatment with intramedullary nailing after provisional stabilization with non penetrating external fixator Translated title: Fratura exposta da diáfise da tíbia – tratamento com osteossíntese intramedular após estabilização provisória com fixador externo não transfixante

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate the incidence of union, nonunion, deep infection and factors influencing the time of bone healing in the treatment of open tibial shaft fractures Gustilo and Anderson types I and II initially treated with a non penetrating external fixator (Pinless ®) followed by an unreamed intramedullary locked nail (UTN ®).

          Methods

          It is a prospective study of 39 open tibial shaft fractures. According to the AO classification, 16 patients (41.0%) were type A, 17 (43.6%) were type B and six (15.4%) were type C. According to the Gustilo and Anderson classification, 14 patients (35.9%) were type I and 25 (64.1%) were type II. For the definitive stabilization of the fracture were used an unreamed intramedulary locked nail (UTN ®).

          Results

          Bone healing was achieved in 97.4% of the cases, with a mean time of 21.2 weeks, ranging from 12 to 104 weeks. Deep infection was seen in 2.6% patients and malunion were seen in 5.1%. Only the presence of complications were statistically significant to the time of bone healing, with a risk of faster healing in patients without complications of 4.29 times (CI 95%: 1.25–14.71) comparing to patients with complications.

          Conclusion

          The treatment of open tibial shaft fractures with unreamed intramedullary locked nail allows high rates of bone healing, low rates of nonunion and deep infection, and only the presence of complications is statistically significant to the time of bone healing.

          Resumo

          Objetivo

          Avaliar as taxas de consolidação, não consolidação e infecção profunda e quais fatores podem influenciar o tempo de consolidação nos pacientes com fraturas expostas da diáfise da tíbia graus I e II de Gustilo e Anderson, tratadas segundo um protocolo sequencial inicialmente com fixador externo não transfixante Pinless ®, seguido por osteossíntese com haste intramedular maciça bloqueada não fresada (UTN ®).

          Métodos

          Em estudo prospectivo, 39 fraturas expostas da diáfise da tíbia foram acompanhadas. Segundo a classificação AO, 16 pacientes (41%) sofreram fraturas do tipo A, 17 (43,6%) do tipo B e seis (15,4%) do tipo C. Segundo a classificação de Gustilo e Anderson, 14 pacientes (35,9%) sofreram fraturas expostas grau I e 25 (64,1%) fraturas grau II. Para fixação interna foi usada haste intramedular maciça bloqueada não fresada (UTN ®).

          Resultados

          Consolidação ocorreu em 97,4% dos casos com tempo médio de 21,2 semanas, variação de 12 até 104 semanas. Infecção profunda ocorreu em 2,6% dos casos e consolidação viciosa ocorreu em 5,1%. Da análise estatística observamos que apenas a presença de complicações é estatisticamente significativa para explicar o tempo de consolidação. O risco de consolidação mais rápida em pacientes sem complicações é de 4,29 vezes (IC 95%: 1,25–14,71) em relação a pacientes com complicações.

          Conclusão

          O tratamento das fraturas expostas da diáfise da tíbia com osteossíntese intramedular maciça bloqueada não fresada apresenta taxa alta de consolidação, baixas taxas de não consolidação e de infecção profunda e apenas a presença de complicações apresenta relação estatisticamente significante com o tempo de consolidação.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures.

          There remains a compelling biological rationale for both reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Previous small trials have left the evidence for either approach inconclusive. We compared reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing with regard to the rates of reoperations and complications in patients with tibial shaft fractures. We conducted a multicenter, blinded randomized trial of 1319 adults in whom a tibial shaft fracture was treated with either reamed or unreamed intramedullary nailing. Perioperative care was standardized, and reoperations for nonunion before six months were disallowed. The primary composite outcome measured at twelve months postoperatively included bone-grafting, implant exchange, and dynamization in patients with a fracture gap of <1 cm. Infection and fasciotomy were considered as part of the composite outcome, irrespective of the postoperative gap. One thousand two hundred and twenty-six participants (93%) completed one year of follow-up. Of these, 622 patients were randomized to reamed nailing and 604 patients were randomized to unreamed nailing. Among all patients, fifty-seven (4.6%) required implant exchange or bone-grafting because of nonunion. Among all patients, 105 in the reamed nailing group and 114 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary outcome event (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.15). In patients with closed fractures, forty-five (11%) of 416 in the reamed nailing group and sixty-eight (17%) of 410 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.96; p = 0.03). This difference was largely due to differences in dynamization. In patients with open fractures, sixty of 206 in the reamed nailing group and forty-six of 194 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.78; p = 0.16). The present study demonstrates a possible benefit for reamed intramedullary nailing in patients with closed fractures. We found no difference between approaches in patients with open fractures. Delaying reoperation for nonunion for at least six months may substantially decrease the need for reoperation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A review of the management of open fractures of the tibia and femur.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Locking intramedullary nailing with and without reaming for open fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study.

              Ninety-one patients who had ninety-four open fractures of the tibial shaft were randomized into two treatment groups. Fifty fractures (nine type-I, eighteen type-II, sixteen type-IIIA, and seven type-IIIB fractures, according to the classification of Gustilo et al.) were treated with nailing after reaming, and forty-four fractures (five type-I, sixteen type-II, nineteen type-IIIA, and four type-IIIB fractures) were treated with nailing without reaming. The average diameter of the nail was 11.5 millimeters (range, nine to fourteen millimeters) in the group treated with reaming and 9.2 millimeters (range, eight to ten millimeters) in the group treated without reaming. Follow-up information was adequate for forty-five patients (forty-seven fractures) who had been managed with reaming and forty patients (forty-one fractures) who had been managed without reaming. No clinically important differences were found between the two groups with regard to the technical aspects of the procedure or the rate of early postoperative complications. The average time to union was thirty weeks (range, thirteen to seventy-two weeks) in the group treated with reaming and twenty-nine weeks (range, thirteen to fifty weeks) in the group treated without reaming. Four (9 per cent) of the fractures treated with reaming and five (12 per cent) of the fractures treated without reaming did not unite (p = 0.73). There were two infections in the group treated with reaming and one in the group treated without reaming. Significantly more screws broke in the group treated without reaming (twelve; 29 per cent) than in the group treated with reaming (four; 9 per cent) (p = 0.014). There was no difference between the two groups with regard to the frequency of broken nails (two nails that had been inserted after reaming broke, compared with one that had been inserted without reaming). The functional outcome, in terms of pain in the knee, range of motion, return to work, and recreational activity, did not differ significantly between the groups. We concluded that the clinical and radiographic results of nailing after reaming are similar to those of nailing without reaming for fixation of open fractures of the tibial shaft, although more screws broke when reaming had not been done.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Rev Bras Ortop
                Rev Bras Ortop
                Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia
                Elsevier
                2255-4971
                04 January 2014
                Nov-Dec 2013
                04 January 2014
                : 48
                : 6
                : 482-490
                Affiliations
                [0005]Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, Pavilhão Fernandinho Simonsen, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
                Author notes
                [* ] Corresponding author. jose.octavio.hungria@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2255-4971(13)00138-9
                10.1016/j.rboe.2013.12.020
                6565977
                31304158
                a95eeb74-712a-4e62-9b2a-2e08c833f2cf
                © 2013 Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Elsevier Editora.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 16 November 2011
                : 13 May 2013
                Categories
                Original Article

                tibial fractures,fractures, open,diaphyses,external fixators,fractures fixation, intramedullary,fraturas da tíbia,fraturas expostas,diáfises,fixadores externos,fixação intramedular de fraturas

                Comments

                Comment on this article