Comparison of mini-open reduction and autologous bone grafting with closed reduction and intramedullary device insertion for tibial shaft fractures: a retrospective study.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 37480093.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1186/s13018-023-04024-9 and PMC identifier 10362687.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
We compared the clinical efficacy of mini-open reduction and autologous bone grafting (G<sub>M</sub>) and closed reduction (G<sub>C</sub>) using intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. This retrospective study included 70 tibial shaft fractures treated with G<sub>M</sub> or G<sub>C</sub> between January 2018 and December 2021. The demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the two treatment methods. This study included 70 patients who were followed-up for 12.4 months. In total, 31 and 39 patients were treated with G<sub>M</sub> and G<sub>C</sub>, respectively. The operative duration was significantly shorter for G<sub>M</sub> (95.2 ± 19.3 min) than for G<sub>C</sub> (105.5 ± 22.2 min, p = 0.0454). The number of radiation times was significantly lower for G<sub>M</sub> (14.7 ± 6.3) than for G<sub>C</sub> (22.2 ± 9.2, p < 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of the wound complication or infection rates. The malunion and nonunion rates were high after G<sub>C</sub> than after G<sub>M</sub>, but there are no significant differences between the groups. Closed reduction and intramedullary nailing remains the first choice for tibial shaft fractures. G<sub>M</sub> is a safe and effective treatment worth considering. Future prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.
Medical subject headings
- Tibial Fractures
Anatomy
- tibia