No Difference in Short-Term Complications following Treatment of Closed Tibial Shaft Fractures with Intramedullary Nailing versus Plate Fixation.

IF 1.2 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Advances in Orthopedics Pub Date : 2023-10-12 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/1627225
Conor N O'Neill, Nicholas Hooper, Jacob Wait, James Satalich, David Cinats, Clarence Toney, Paul Perdue, Jibanananda Satpathy
{"title":"No Difference in Short-Term Complications following Treatment of Closed Tibial Shaft Fractures with Intramedullary Nailing versus Plate Fixation.","authors":"Conor N O'Neill,&nbsp;Nicholas Hooper,&nbsp;Jacob Wait,&nbsp;James Satalich,&nbsp;David Cinats,&nbsp;Clarence Toney,&nbsp;Paul Perdue,&nbsp;Jibanananda Satpathy","doi":"10.1155/2023/1627225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Tibial shaft fractures are treated with both intramedullary nailing (IMN) and plate fixation (ORIF). Using a large national database, we aimed to explore the differences in thirty-day complication rates between IMN and ORIF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database who had undergone either tibial IMN or ORIF for closed fractures from 2010 to 2018 were identified using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. After excluding all patients with open fractures, the propensity score was matching. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors associated with the thirty-day incidence of complications in the two cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5,400 patients were identified with 3,902 (72.3%) undergoing IMN and 1,498 (27.7%) ORIF. After excluding any ICD-10 diagnosis codes not pertaining to closed, traumatic tibial shaft fractures, 2,136 IMN and 621 ORIF cases remained. After matching, the baseline demographics were not significantly different between the cohorts. Following matching, the rate of any adverse event (aae) did not differ significantly between the IMN (7.08% (<i>n</i> = 44)) and ORIF (8.86% (<i>n</i> = 55)) cohorts (<i>p</i>=0.13). There was also no significant difference in operative time (IMN = 98.5 min, ORIF = 100 min; <i>p</i>=0.3) or length of stay (IMN = 3.7 days, ORIF = 3.3 days; <i>p</i>=0.08) between the cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were no significant differences in short-term complications between cohorts. These are important data for the surgeon when considering surgical management of closed tibial shaft fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":7358,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Orthopedics","volume":"2023 ","pages":"1627225"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1627225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Tibial shaft fractures are treated with both intramedullary nailing (IMN) and plate fixation (ORIF). Using a large national database, we aimed to explore the differences in thirty-day complication rates between IMN and ORIF.

Methods: Patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database who had undergone either tibial IMN or ORIF for closed fractures from 2010 to 2018 were identified using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. After excluding all patients with open fractures, the propensity score was matching. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors associated with the thirty-day incidence of complications in the two cohorts.

Results: A total of 5,400 patients were identified with 3,902 (72.3%) undergoing IMN and 1,498 (27.7%) ORIF. After excluding any ICD-10 diagnosis codes not pertaining to closed, traumatic tibial shaft fractures, 2,136 IMN and 621 ORIF cases remained. After matching, the baseline demographics were not significantly different between the cohorts. Following matching, the rate of any adverse event (aae) did not differ significantly between the IMN (7.08% (n = 44)) and ORIF (8.86% (n = 55)) cohorts (p=0.13). There was also no significant difference in operative time (IMN = 98.5 min, ORIF = 100 min; p=0.3) or length of stay (IMN = 3.7 days, ORIF = 3.3 days; p=0.08) between the cohorts.

Conclusion: There were no significant differences in short-term complications between cohorts. These are important data for the surgeon when considering surgical management of closed tibial shaft fractures.

Abstract Image

髓内钉与钢板内固定治疗闭合性胫骨干骨折后短期并发症无差异。
目的:采用髓内钉(IMN)和钢板内固定(ORIF)治疗胫骨干骨折。使用一个大型国家数据库,我们旨在探索IMN和ORIF在30天并发症发生率方面的差异。在排除所有开放性骨折患者后,倾向评分是匹配的。在两个队列中,使用单变量和多变量逻辑回归来确定与30天并发症发生率相关的风险因素。结果:共确认5400名患者,其中3902名(72.3%)接受IMN,1498名(27.7%)接受ORIF。在排除任何与闭合性创伤性胫骨干骨折无关的ICD-10诊断代码后,仍有2136例IMN和621例ORIF病例。匹配后,基线人口统计数据在队列之间没有显著差异。匹配后,IMN之间的任何不良事件发生率(aae)没有显著差异(7.08%(n = 44))和ORIF(8.86%(n = 55))组(p=0.13)。手术时间(IMN)也没有显著差异 = 98.5 最小,ORIF = 100 min;p=0.3)或停留时间(IMN = 3.7 天,ORIF = 3.3 天;p=0.08)。结论:两组患者的短期并发症没有显著差异。这些是外科医生在考虑闭合性胫骨干骨折的手术治疗时的重要数据。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Orthopedics is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for orthopaedics working on improving the quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to arthroplasty, hand surgery, limb reconstruction, pediatric orthopaedics, sports medicine, trauma, spinal deformities, and orthopaedic oncology.
×
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