Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) via percutaneous plate placement on the distal medial tibia can be performed with minimizes soft tissue injury and produces good clinical results. However, the difficulty with MIPO lies in how to achieve satisfactory fracture reduction and maintain that reduction via indirect reduction techniques to facilitate internal fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques combined with MIPO in the treatment of distal tibia fractures. Methods Between January 2013 and December 2019, 58 patients with a distal tibia fracture were treated using MIPO. Patients were divided into two groups according to the indirect reduction method that was used: 26 patients were reduced with manual traction(group M), and 32 were reduced with an AO distractor (group A).Time until union and clinical outcomes including AOFAS ankle-rating score and ankle range of ankle motion at final follow-up were compared. Mean operative time, incision length, blood loss and postoperative complications were recorded via chart review. Radiographic results at final follow-up were assessed for tibial angulation and shortening by a blinded reader. Results Mean operative time, incision length, and blood loss in group A were significantly lower than in group M(p = 0.019, 0.018 and 0.016, respectively).Radiographic evidence of bony union was seen in all cases, and mean time until union was equivalent between the two groups (p = 0.384).Skin irritation was noted in one case(3.1%) in group A and three cases(11.5%)in group M, but the symptoms were not severe and the plate was removed after bony union. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups(p = 0.461). Mean AOFAS score and range of ankle motion were equivalent between the two groups, as were varus deformity, valgus deformity, anterior angulation and posterior angulation. No patients had gross angular deformity. Mean tibial shortening was not significantly different between the two groups, and no patients had tibial shortening > 10 mm. Conclusion Both an AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques prior to MIPO in the treatment of distal tibial fractures permit a high fracture healing rate and satisfying functional outcomes with few wound healing complications. An AO distractor is an excellent indirect reduction method that may improve operative efficiency and reduce the risk of soft tissue injury.
Background Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) via percutaneous plate placement on the distal medial tibia can be performed with minimizes soft tissue injury and produces good clinical results. However, the difficulty with MIPO lies in how to achieve satisfactory fracture reduction and maintain that reduction via indirect reduction techniques to facilitate internal fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques combined with MIPO in the treatment of distal tibia fractures. Methods Between January 2013 and December 2019, 58 patients with a distal tibia fracture were treated using MIPO. Patients were divided into two groups according to the indirect reduction method that was used: 26 patients were reduced with manual traction(group M), and 32 were reduced with an AO distractor (group A).Time until union and clinical outcomes including AOFAS ankle-rating score and ankle range of ankle motion at final follow-up were compared. Mean operative time, incision length, blood loss and postoperative complications were recorded via chart review. Radiographic results at final follow-up were assessed for tibial angulation and shortening by a blinded reader. Results Mean operative time, incision length, and blood loss in group A were significantly lower than in group M(p = 0.019, 0.018 and 0.016, respectively).Radiographic evidence of bony union was seen in all cases, and mean time until union was equivalent between the two groups (p = 0.384).Skin irritation was noted in one case(3.1%) in group A and three cases(11.5%)in group M, but the symptoms were not severe and the plate was removed after bony union. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups(p = 0.461). Mean AOFAS score and range of ankle motion were equivalent between the two groups, as were varus deformity, valgus deformity, anterior angulation and posterior angulation. No patients had gross angular deformity. Mean tibial shortening was not significantly different between the two groups, and no patients had tibial shortening > 10 mm. Conclusion Both an AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques prior to MIPO in the treatment of distal tibial fractures permit a high fracture healing rate and satisfying functional outcomes with few wound healing complications. An AO distractor is an excellent indirect reduction method that may improve operative efficiency and reduce the risk of soft tissue injury.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDYThe aim of our study is to investigate the reliabilities of the radiographic union score for tibial fracture (RUST) and modified RUST scoring systems in the evaluation of fracture healing in adult tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing and pediatric tibia fractures treated with closed reduction and cast immobilization and to compare the reliabilities between two groups. MATERIAL AND METHODSBetween January 2016 and January 2020, the informations of patients (ages of 4-10) with tibia fractures treated with closed reduction and casting and patients (aged 18-65 years) with tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing were analyzed retrospectively. Forty-seven good quality AP and lateral radiographs (represent different healing stages) each for pediatric and adult fracture groups were selected and were included in two PPTs separately. The radiographs were assessed twice with an interval of three weeks by an observer group consisting of four senior orthopedic surgeons and four orthopedic residents, and fractures were evaluated according to the RUST and mRUST scoring systems. RESULTSThe inter-observer agreement of RUST and mRUST were 'perfect' in adult tibia fractures and 'substantial' in pediatric tibia fractures in both evaluations. However, in deciding fracture consolidation, inter-observer agreement was found to be 'perfect' in pediatric tibia fractures, while it was 'substantial' in adult fractures in both assessments. The mean intra-observer reliability of RUST system in adult tibia fractures was 0.860 (0.674-0.968) and 0.818 (0.693-0.909) in pediatric tibia fractures, respectively. The mean intra-observer agreement of mRUST system was 0.842(0.745-0.979) in adult fractures and 0.857 (0.756-0.932) in pediatric fractures, respectively. The mean intra-observer reliability of decision on union was 0.842 (0.638-1.000) in adult fractures and 0.785 (0.611-0.977) in pediatric fractures, respectively. DISCUSSIONThe decision of union in tibia shaft fractures is based on repeated clinical and radiological evaluations but there are no universally accepted guidelines to evaluate radiographic union. It has been shown in previous studies that the RUST and mRUST scoring systems can be used safely in the evaluation of fracture healing in adult patients with tibia fracture treated with intra-medullary nailing. To our knowledge, there are no studies investigating the reliability of RUST and mRUST systems in conservatively treated pediatric tibial fractures. We hypothesized that the plaster of Paris makes it difficult to assess fracture union on direct radiographs and reduce the reliabilities of these scoring systems in pediatric tibial fractures. CONCLUSIONSOur study showed that both RUST and mRUST scoring systems are useful tools that can be used safely assessing fracture healing in both pediatric and adult tibia fractures. The presence of a plaster of Paris on the extremity did not adversely affect the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement of the RUST and mRUST scoring systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.