A Retrospective Study With 2-Year Follow-up Comparing Semi-Extended Tibia Nailing Techniques: The Suprapatellar Versus the Extra-Articular Lateral Parapatellar Approach.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Mattia Alessio-Mazzola, Valerio Alpi, Elena Ghezzi, Giacomo Placella, Vincenzo Salini
{"title":"A Retrospective Study With 2-Year Follow-up Comparing Semi-Extended Tibia Nailing Techniques: The Suprapatellar Versus the Extra-Articular Lateral Parapatellar Approach.","authors":"Mattia Alessio-Mazzola, Valerio Alpi, Elena Ghezzi, Giacomo Placella, Vincenzo Salini","doi":"10.1177/15563316251326505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The quest for optimal approaches to treating tibial shaft fractures in orthopedic surgery remains a topic of debate.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We sought to compare the patellofemoral and radiological outcomes of 2 surgical techniques for treating tibial shaft fractures: the suprapatellar and extra-articular lateral parapatellar (ELP) approaches, both used in intramedullary tibial nailing in a semi-extended position.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This retrospective analysis examined 73 adult patients treated for tibial shaft fracture from January 2018 to December 2023, divided into 2 groups: 42 in the suprapatellar group and 31 in the ELP group. Evaluation metrics included radiographic outcomes, clinical results, and complication rates, focusing on anterior knee pain (measured by visual analog scale) and knee function (Kujala and Lysholm scores).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were found in union rate, nail apex distance, reoperation rate, or malalignment between the 2 approaches. However, the ELP approach was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes, with higher Lysholm scores and reduced anterior knee pain. Additionally, the suprapatellar approach (SP) was associated with a higher incidence of painful hemarthrosis during hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While this retrospective comparison found both techniques to be effective in treating tibial shaft fractures, the ELP approach was associated with superior functional outcomes as assessed by higher Lysholm scores and Kujala scores, less anterior knee pain, and a lower risk of painful hemarthrosis compared to the SP approach. Further study is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":35357,"journal":{"name":"Hss Journal","volume":" ","pages":"15563316251326505"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969474/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hss Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316251326505","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The quest for optimal approaches to treating tibial shaft fractures in orthopedic surgery remains a topic of debate.

Purpose: We sought to compare the patellofemoral and radiological outcomes of 2 surgical techniques for treating tibial shaft fractures: the suprapatellar and extra-articular lateral parapatellar (ELP) approaches, both used in intramedullary tibial nailing in a semi-extended position.

Methodology: This retrospective analysis examined 73 adult patients treated for tibial shaft fracture from January 2018 to December 2023, divided into 2 groups: 42 in the suprapatellar group and 31 in the ELP group. Evaluation metrics included radiographic outcomes, clinical results, and complication rates, focusing on anterior knee pain (measured by visual analog scale) and knee function (Kujala and Lysholm scores).

Results: No significant differences were found in union rate, nail apex distance, reoperation rate, or malalignment between the 2 approaches. However, the ELP approach was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes, with higher Lysholm scores and reduced anterior knee pain. Additionally, the suprapatellar approach (SP) was associated with a higher incidence of painful hemarthrosis during hospitalization.

Conclusion: While this retrospective comparison found both techniques to be effective in treating tibial shaft fractures, the ELP approach was associated with superior functional outcomes as assessed by higher Lysholm scores and Kujala scores, less anterior knee pain, and a lower risk of painful hemarthrosis compared to the SP approach. Further study is warranted.

一项为期两年随访的回顾性研究,比较了半延长胫骨钉技术:髌上入路与髌旁关节外侧入路的比较
背景:目的:我们试图比较治疗胫骨轴骨折的两种手术技术的髌股关节和放射学结果:髌骨上和关节外侧旁(ELP)方法,这两种方法均用于半伸展位的胫骨髓内钉:这项回顾性分析研究了2018年1月至2023年12月期间接受胫骨轴骨折治疗的73名成年患者,分为两组:髌上组42人,ELP组31人。评价指标包括放射学结果、临床结果和并发症发生率,重点关注膝关节前部疼痛(通过视觉模拟量表测量)和膝关节功能(Kujala和Lysholm评分):结果:两种方法在结合率、钉尖距离、再手术率或错位方面均无明显差异。然而,ELP方法的临床疗效明显更好,Lysholm评分更高,膝关节前部疼痛减轻。此外,髌骨上入路(SP)与住院期间疼痛性血肿发生率较高有关:结论:虽然这项回顾性比较发现两种方法都能有效治疗胫骨轴骨折,但与SP方法相比,ELP方法的功能效果更佳,Lysholm评分和Kujala评分更高,膝关节前部疼痛更轻,发生疼痛性关节肿胀的风险更低。有必要进行进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hss Journal
Hss Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The HSS Journal is the Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery. The aim of the HSS Journal is to promote cutting edge research, clinical pathways, and state-of-the-art techniques that inform and facilitate the continuing education of the orthopaedic and musculoskeletal communities. HSS Journal publishes articles that offer contributions to the advancement of the knowledge of musculoskeletal diseases and encourages submission of manuscripts from all musculoskeletal disciplines.
×
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