小儿胫骨骨干骨折三种手术治疗方案的比较。

Sang Won Lee, Blair Stewig, Danielle Cook, Kristin Alves, Akossiwa Brynn Assignon, Daniel Hedequist, Mininder S Kocher, Benjamin J Shore, Susan T Mahan
{"title":"小儿胫骨骨干骨折三种手术治疗方案的比较。","authors":"Sang Won Lee, Blair Stewig, Danielle Cook, Kristin Alves, Akossiwa Brynn Assignon, Daniel Hedequist, Mininder S Kocher, Benjamin J Shore, Susan T Mahan","doi":"10.1016/j.jposna.2025.100210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most pediatric diaphyseal tibia fractures can be treated with reduction and casting. While surgical reduction and fixation are sometimes necessary, there is no clear consensus about the optimal implant. Plate osteosynthesis (PO), elastic intramedullary nailing (EIN), and multiplanar external fixation (MEF) are common surgical fixation methods in the skeletally immature patient after failing closed reduction. This study aims to compare the indications and outcomes of PO, EIN, and MEF techniques for the surgical treatment of the pediatric diaphyseal tibia fracture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Skeletally immature patients ages 4-16 years treated surgically by PO, EIN, or MEF for a diaphyseal tibia fracture at a single, tertiary pediatric hospital were included. Demographic, clinical, radiographic data, and complications were collected retrospectively. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo-Sink classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 82 patients were included with a median age of 13.4 years (range, 5.69-15.94) and median follow-up of 46 weeks (range, 14-237), of whom 84% (69/82) were male. Most patients received EIN (61%; 50/82), while 23% (19/82) had MEF, and 16% (13/82) had PO. There were no differences across treatment groups for open (<i>P</i> = .96) and comminuted (<i>P</i> = .19) fractures. Location of fracture was significantly different by treatment method, with middle 1/3 fractures treated mostly by EIN (77%; 34/44) and distal 1/3 fractures treated across all three fixation methods (<i>P</i> = .002). Patients treated with MEF (47%; 9/19) and PO (46%; 6/13) had higher complication rates compared with those treated with EIN (22%; 11/50). Patients treated with PO and MEF had 6.0 and 6.2 times the odds of having a severe complication, compared to patients who had EIN, controlling for age, weight, and fracture severity (<i>P</i> = .01, <i>P</i> = .02). There was no significant difference in other fracture characteristics and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three fixation types (PO, EIN, and MEF) show similar indications, although fracture location in the diaphysis may influence implant choice. EIN has a lower complication rate compared with PO and MEF and presents a strong option for operative treatment of the pediatric tibia shaft fracture.</p><p><strong>Key concepts: </strong>(1)There is no clear consensus about optimal implant, including plate osteosynthesis (PO), elastic intramedullary nailing (EIN), and multiplanar external fixation (MEF), for the surgical treatment of skeletally immature tibial shaft fractures.(2)Among 82 patients with pediatric tibial diaphysis fractures, most patients received EIN (61%; 50/82), while 23% (19/82) had MEF, and 16% (13/82) had PO with no difference across treatment groups in terms of open (<i>P</i> = .96) or comminuted (<i>P</i> = .19) fractures.(3)Location of fracture was significantly different by treatment method, with middle 1/3 fractures treated mostly by EIN (77%; 34/44) and distal 1/3 fractures treated across all three fixation methods (<i>P</i> = .002).(4)Patients treated with EIN (22%; 11/50) had a lower complication rate compared with those treated with MEF (47%; 9/19) and PO (46%; 6/13). Patients treated with PO and MEF had 6.0 and 6.2 times the odds of having a severe complication compared with those treated with EIN, controlling for age, weight, and fracture severity (<i>P</i> = .01, <i>P</i> = .02).(5)All three fixation types show similar indications, although fracture location in the diaphysis may influence implant choice, and EIN presents a strong option for operative treatment of the pediatric tibia shaft fracture with a lower complication rate.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III: Case-control study or retrospective cohort study.</p>","PeriodicalId":520850,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America","volume":"12 ","pages":"100210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12317408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Three Surgical Options for Treatment of Diaphyseal Tibia Fractures in Pediatric Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Sang Won Lee, Blair Stewig, Danielle Cook, Kristin Alves, Akossiwa Brynn Assignon, Daniel Hedequist, Mininder S Kocher, Benjamin J Shore, Susan T Mahan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jposna.2025.100210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most pediatric diaphyseal tibia fractures can be treated with reduction and casting. While surgical reduction and fixation are sometimes necessary, there is no clear consensus about the optimal implant. Plate osteosynthesis (PO), elastic intramedullary nailing (EIN), and multiplanar external fixation (MEF) are common surgical fixation methods in the skeletally immature patient after failing closed reduction. This study aims to compare the indications and outcomes of PO, EIN, and MEF techniques for the surgical treatment of the pediatric diaphyseal tibia fracture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Skeletally immature patients ages 4-16 years treated surgically by PO, EIN, or MEF for a diaphyseal tibia fracture at a single, tertiary pediatric hospital were included. Demographic, clinical, radiographic data, and complications were collected retrospectively. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo-Sink classification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 82 patients were included with a median age of 13.4 years (range, 5.69-15.94) and median follow-up of 46 weeks (range, 14-237), of whom 84% (69/82) were male. Most patients received EIN (61%; 50/82), while 23% (19/82) had MEF, and 16% (13/82) had PO. There were no differences across treatment groups for open (<i>P</i> = .96) and comminuted (<i>P</i> = .19) fractures. Location of fracture was significantly different by treatment method, with middle 1/3 fractures treated mostly by EIN (77%; 34/44) and distal 1/3 fractures treated across all three fixation methods (<i>P</i> = .002). Patients treated with MEF (47%; 9/19) and PO (46%; 6/13) had higher complication rates compared with those treated with EIN (22%; 11/50). Patients treated with PO and MEF had 6.0 and 6.2 times the odds of having a severe complication, compared to patients who had EIN, controlling for age, weight, and fracture severity (<i>P</i> = .01, <i>P</i> = .02). There was no significant difference in other fracture characteristics and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three fixation types (PO, EIN, and MEF) show similar indications, although fracture location in the diaphysis may influence implant choice. EIN has a lower complication rate compared with PO and MEF and presents a strong option for operative treatment of the pediatric tibia shaft fracture.</p><p><strong>Key concepts: </strong>(1)There is no clear consensus about optimal implant, including plate osteosynthesis (PO), elastic intramedullary nailing (EIN), and multiplanar external fixation (MEF), for the surgical treatment of skeletally immature tibial shaft fractures.(2)Among 82 patients with pediatric tibial diaphysis fractures, most patients received EIN (61%; 50/82), while 23% (19/82) had MEF, and 16% (13/82) had PO with no difference across treatment groups in terms of open (<i>P</i> = .96) or comminuted (<i>P</i> = .19) fractures.(3)Location of fracture was significantly different by treatment method, with middle 1/3 fractures treated mostly by EIN (77%; 34/44) and distal 1/3 fractures treated across all three fixation methods (<i>P</i> = .002).(4)Patients treated with EIN (22%; 11/50) had a lower complication rate compared with those treated with MEF (47%; 9/19) and PO (46%; 6/13). Patients treated with PO and MEF had 6.0 and 6.2 times the odds of having a severe complication compared with those treated with EIN, controlling for age, weight, and fracture severity (<i>P</i> = .01, <i>P</i> = .02).(5)All three fixation types show similar indications, although fracture location in the diaphysis may influence implant choice, and EIN presents a strong option for operative treatment of the pediatric tibia shaft fracture with a lower complication rate.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III: Case-control study or retrospective cohort study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"100210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12317408/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jposna.2025.100210\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jposna.2025.100210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数儿童胫骨骨干骨折可以通过复位和铸造来治疗。虽然手术复位和固定有时是必要的,但对于最佳种植体没有明确的共识。钢板内固定(PO)、弹性髓内钉(EIN)和多平面外固定(MEF)是闭合复位失败后骨骼未成熟患者常用的手术固定方法。本研究旨在比较PO、EIN和MEF技术在小儿胫骨骨干骨折手术治疗中的适应症和疗效。方法:在单一的三级儿科医院接受PO, EIN或MEF手术治疗的4-16岁骨骼未成熟患者胫骨骨干骨折。回顾性收集人口统计学、临床、影像学资料及并发症。并发症按Clavien-Dindo-Sink分类。结果:共纳入82例患者,中位年龄13.4岁(范围5.69 ~ 15.94),中位随访时间46周(范围14 ~ 237),其中84%(69/82)为男性。大多数患者接受了EIN (61%;50/82), 23%(19/82)有MEF, 16%(13/82)有PO。开放性骨折(P = 0.96)和粉碎性骨折(P = 0.19)治疗组间无差异。不同治疗方法骨折位置差异显著,中间1/3骨折多采用EIN治疗(77%;34/44)和远端1/3骨折采用三种固定方法治疗(P = 0.002)。接受MEF治疗的患者(47%;9/19)和PO (46%;6/13)的并发症发生率高于EIN组(22%;11/50)。在控制年龄、体重和骨折严重程度的情况下,与接受EIN治疗的患者相比,接受PO和MEF治疗的患者发生严重并发症的几率分别为6.0和6.2倍(P = 0.01, P = 0.02)。其他骨折特征和结局无显著差异。结论:所有三种固定类型(PO, EIN和MEF)显示相似的适应症,尽管骨折在骨干中的位置可能影响植入物的选择。与PO和MEF相比,EIN的并发症发生率较低,是小儿胫骨干骨折手术治疗的一个强有力的选择。关键概念:(1)对于骨未发育成熟的胫骨干骨折的手术治疗,目前对于钢板内固定(PO)、弹性髓内钉(EIN)和多平面外固定(MEF)等最佳植入物的选择尚无明确的共识。(2)82例小儿胫骨干骨折患者中,大多数患者采用了EIN (61%;50/82),而23%(19/82)的骨折为MEF, 16%(13/82)的骨折为PO,两组间开放性骨折(P = 0.96)和粉碎性骨折(P = 0.19)的骨折位置在治疗方式上差异无统计学意义(3)骨折位置在治疗方式上差异有统计学意义,中间1/3骨折以EIN治疗为主(77%;34/44)和远端1/3骨折在所有三种固定方法中均得到治疗(P = 0.002)。11/50)的并发症发生率低于MEF治疗组(47%;9/19)和PO (46%;6/13)。在控制年龄、体重和骨折严重程度的情况下,PO和MEF治疗的患者发生严重并发症的几率是EIN治疗的6.0倍和6.2倍(P = 0.01, P = 0.02)。(5)尽管骨折在骨干的位置可能影响植入物的选择,但所有三种固定类型的适应症相似,EIN是儿童胫骨骨干骨折手术治疗的有力选择,并发症发生率较低。证据等级:III级:病例对照研究或回顾性队列研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Three Surgical Options for Treatment of Diaphyseal Tibia Fractures in Pediatric Patients.

Background: Most pediatric diaphyseal tibia fractures can be treated with reduction and casting. While surgical reduction and fixation are sometimes necessary, there is no clear consensus about the optimal implant. Plate osteosynthesis (PO), elastic intramedullary nailing (EIN), and multiplanar external fixation (MEF) are common surgical fixation methods in the skeletally immature patient after failing closed reduction. This study aims to compare the indications and outcomes of PO, EIN, and MEF techniques for the surgical treatment of the pediatric diaphyseal tibia fracture.

Methods: Skeletally immature patients ages 4-16 years treated surgically by PO, EIN, or MEF for a diaphyseal tibia fracture at a single, tertiary pediatric hospital were included. Demographic, clinical, radiographic data, and complications were collected retrospectively. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo-Sink classification.

Results: In total, 82 patients were included with a median age of 13.4 years (range, 5.69-15.94) and median follow-up of 46 weeks (range, 14-237), of whom 84% (69/82) were male. Most patients received EIN (61%; 50/82), while 23% (19/82) had MEF, and 16% (13/82) had PO. There were no differences across treatment groups for open (P = .96) and comminuted (P = .19) fractures. Location of fracture was significantly different by treatment method, with middle 1/3 fractures treated mostly by EIN (77%; 34/44) and distal 1/3 fractures treated across all three fixation methods (P = .002). Patients treated with MEF (47%; 9/19) and PO (46%; 6/13) had higher complication rates compared with those treated with EIN (22%; 11/50). Patients treated with PO and MEF had 6.0 and 6.2 times the odds of having a severe complication, compared to patients who had EIN, controlling for age, weight, and fracture severity (P = .01, P = .02). There was no significant difference in other fracture characteristics and outcomes.

Conclusion: All three fixation types (PO, EIN, and MEF) show similar indications, although fracture location in the diaphysis may influence implant choice. EIN has a lower complication rate compared with PO and MEF and presents a strong option for operative treatment of the pediatric tibia shaft fracture.

Key concepts: (1)There is no clear consensus about optimal implant, including plate osteosynthesis (PO), elastic intramedullary nailing (EIN), and multiplanar external fixation (MEF), for the surgical treatment of skeletally immature tibial shaft fractures.(2)Among 82 patients with pediatric tibial diaphysis fractures, most patients received EIN (61%; 50/82), while 23% (19/82) had MEF, and 16% (13/82) had PO with no difference across treatment groups in terms of open (P = .96) or comminuted (P = .19) fractures.(3)Location of fracture was significantly different by treatment method, with middle 1/3 fractures treated mostly by EIN (77%; 34/44) and distal 1/3 fractures treated across all three fixation methods (P = .002).(4)Patients treated with EIN (22%; 11/50) had a lower complication rate compared with those treated with MEF (47%; 9/19) and PO (46%; 6/13). Patients treated with PO and MEF had 6.0 and 6.2 times the odds of having a severe complication compared with those treated with EIN, controlling for age, weight, and fracture severity (P = .01, P = .02).(5)All three fixation types show similar indications, although fracture location in the diaphysis may influence implant choice, and EIN presents a strong option for operative treatment of the pediatric tibia shaft fracture with a lower complication rate.

Level of evidence: Level III: Case-control study or retrospective cohort study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信