Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Small Caliber Intramedullary Nails for Tibial Shaft Fractures.

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Shannon Tse, Aziz Saade, Samuel K Simister, Lydia J McKeithan, Micaela White, Rebeka Dejenie, Branden Brooks, Rahul Bhale, Sean T Campbell, Ellen Fitzpatrick, Gillian L Soles, Mark A Lee, Augustine M Saiz
{"title":"Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Small Caliber Intramedullary Nails for Tibial Shaft Fractures.","authors":"Shannon Tse, Aziz Saade, Samuel K Simister, Lydia J McKeithan, Micaela White, Rebeka Dejenie, Branden Brooks, Rahul Bhale, Sean T Campbell, Ellen Fitzpatrick, Gillian L Soles, Mark A Lee, Augustine M Saiz","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Tibial shaft fractures, frequently treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN), are high-risk fractures of nonunion. The effect of intramedullary nail diameter on fracture union reduction remains an area of investigation, with many surgeons anecdotally preferring to place at least a 10-mm tibial nail. We hypothesized that small-caliber nails (SCNs) (diameter ≤9 mm) are safe to use and have no difference in complication rates compared with large-caliber nails (LCNs) (≥10 mm).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted on patients with tibial shaft fractures undergoing reamed IMN at a level 1 trauma center between 2018 and 2022. Patient and injury characteristics, intramedullary nail diameter, surgical details, and postoperative complication rates were recorded. Nail and intramedullary canal width at the isthmus on coronal radiographs determined the nail-canal ratio. Radiographic coronal and sagittal displacement, angulations between fracture segments, and coronal plane tibial mechanical axis were evaluated on latest radiographs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 113 patients, 68 received SCN while 45 received LCN. No difference was observed in the nail-canal ratio between the SCN and LCN groups, indicating that smaller nails were used for smaller canals. No significant demographic differences were noted between groups. LCNs were more prevalent in (AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification) AO/OTA 42C (P = 0.03) and Gustilo-Anderson type III fractures (P = 0.05). The LCN group had higher rates of revision surgery (20% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.03) and wound dehiscence (8.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.02). Gustilo-Anderson IIIA fractures were independently associated with poorer outcomes overall. Radiographic parameters were comparable between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Small-diameter and large-diameter reamed intramedullary nails can be effective in treating tibial shaft fractures. Nail-canal ratios and alignment were similar between the two groups, suggesting that surgeons should not feel obligated to ream to a 10-mm nail in a smaller patient with a well-reduced fracture.</p>","PeriodicalId":45062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11781770/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Tibial shaft fractures, frequently treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN), are high-risk fractures of nonunion. The effect of intramedullary nail diameter on fracture union reduction remains an area of investigation, with many surgeons anecdotally preferring to place at least a 10-mm tibial nail. We hypothesized that small-caliber nails (SCNs) (diameter ≤9 mm) are safe to use and have no difference in complication rates compared with large-caliber nails (LCNs) (≥10 mm).

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with tibial shaft fractures undergoing reamed IMN at a level 1 trauma center between 2018 and 2022. Patient and injury characteristics, intramedullary nail diameter, surgical details, and postoperative complication rates were recorded. Nail and intramedullary canal width at the isthmus on coronal radiographs determined the nail-canal ratio. Radiographic coronal and sagittal displacement, angulations between fracture segments, and coronal plane tibial mechanical axis were evaluated on latest radiographs.

Results: Among 113 patients, 68 received SCN while 45 received LCN. No difference was observed in the nail-canal ratio between the SCN and LCN groups, indicating that smaller nails were used for smaller canals. No significant demographic differences were noted between groups. LCNs were more prevalent in (AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification) AO/OTA 42C (P = 0.03) and Gustilo-Anderson type III fractures (P = 0.05). The LCN group had higher rates of revision surgery (20% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.03) and wound dehiscence (8.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.02). Gustilo-Anderson IIIA fractures were independently associated with poorer outcomes overall. Radiographic parameters were comparable between groups.

Conclusions: Small-diameter and large-diameter reamed intramedullary nails can be effective in treating tibial shaft fractures. Nail-canal ratios and alignment were similar between the two groups, suggesting that surgeons should not feel obligated to ream to a 10-mm nail in a smaller patient with a well-reduced fracture.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
282
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信