Percutaneous Clamp-assisted Reduction Before Intramedullary Nailing for Tibial Shaft Fractures to Improve Reduction Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
{"title":"Percutaneous Clamp-assisted Reduction Before Intramedullary Nailing for Tibial Shaft Fractures to Improve Reduction Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Zhenglin Niu, Yue Lian, Haixiang Sun, Yongzhong Cheng, Zhongkai Wu, Changlong Shi","doi":"10.3928/01477447-20250422-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous clamp-assisted reduction (PCR) and conventional direct reduction (DR) techniques prior to intramedullary nailing (IMN) in the management of tibial shaft fractures.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The medical records of 68 consecutive patients treated via IMN via the infrapatellar approach between January 2020 and December 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. After the inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, patients were divided into PCR (n=37) and DR (n=31) groups. Demographic data, fracture characteristics, surgical data, and prognostic outcomes were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics showed no significant intergroup differences. PCR demonstrated a longer reduction time (25.3±1.9 min vs 21.4±1.4 min, <i>P</i><0.01) but required less fluoroscopic exposure (18.0±1.4 vs 22.0±1.4, <i>P</i><0.01), shorter surgical duration (73.0±3.1 min vs 88.7±8.6 min, <i>P</i><0.01), and reduced blood loss (101.6±17.2 mL vs 153.2±52.9 mL, <i>P</i><0.01). No open reductions occurred in the PCR group, whereas five cases occurred in the DR group (16.1%, <i>P</i><0.05). Approximate anatomical union rates significantly favored PCR (62.2% vs 16.1%, <i>P</i><0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score, union time, delayed union rate, or malunion rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventional DR, PCR prior to IMN improves fracture reduction quality, reduces intraoperative invasiveness, and enhances procedural efficiency, with superior anatomical alignment outcomes. [<i>Orthopedics</i>. 2025;48(3):e147-e152.].</p>","PeriodicalId":19631,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedics","volume":"48 3","pages":"e147-e152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20250422-01","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous clamp-assisted reduction (PCR) and conventional direct reduction (DR) techniques prior to intramedullary nailing (IMN) in the management of tibial shaft fractures.
Materials and methods: The medical records of 68 consecutive patients treated via IMN via the infrapatellar approach between January 2020 and December 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. After the inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, patients were divided into PCR (n=37) and DR (n=31) groups. Demographic data, fracture characteristics, surgical data, and prognostic outcomes were analyzed.
Results: Baseline characteristics showed no significant intergroup differences. PCR demonstrated a longer reduction time (25.3±1.9 min vs 21.4±1.4 min, P<0.01) but required less fluoroscopic exposure (18.0±1.4 vs 22.0±1.4, P<0.01), shorter surgical duration (73.0±3.1 min vs 88.7±8.6 min, P<0.01), and reduced blood loss (101.6±17.2 mL vs 153.2±52.9 mL, P<0.01). No open reductions occurred in the PCR group, whereas five cases occurred in the DR group (16.1%, P<0.05). Approximate anatomical union rates significantly favored PCR (62.2% vs 16.1%, P<0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score, union time, delayed union rate, or malunion rate.
Conclusion: Compared with conventional DR, PCR prior to IMN improves fracture reduction quality, reduces intraoperative invasiveness, and enhances procedural efficiency, with superior anatomical alignment outcomes. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(3):e147-e152.].
背景:本回顾性队列研究旨在比较经皮钳辅助复位(PCR)和常规直接复位(DR)技术在髓内钉(IMN)治疗胫骨干骨折的临床结果。材料与方法:回顾性分析2020年1月至2023年12月间经髌下入路IMN治疗的68例患者的病历。应用纳入/排除标准后,将患者分为PCR组(n=37)和DR组(n=31)。对人口统计资料、骨折特征、手术资料和预后结果进行分析。结果:基线特征组间无显著差异。PCR复位时间更长(25.3±1.9 min vs 21.4±1.4 min)。结论:与常规DR相比,在IMN前进行PCR可提高骨折复位质量,减少术中侵入性,提高手术效率,并具有更好的解剖定位效果。[矫形手术。2025; 48 (3): e147-e152。]。
期刊介绍:
For over 40 years, Orthopedics, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal, has been the preferred choice of orthopedic surgeons for clinically relevant information on all aspects of adult and pediatric orthopedic surgery and treatment. Edited by Robert D''Ambrosia, MD, Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and former President of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well as an Editorial Board of over 100 international orthopedists, Orthopedics is the source to turn to for guidance in your practice.
The journal offers access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content. Highlights also include Blue Ribbon articles published full text in print and online, as well as Tips & Techniques posted with every issue.