Treatment of distal tibial fractures: plate versus nail: A retrospective outcome analysis of matched pairs of patients

A study of 24 patients who sustained an extra-articular fracture of the distal third of the tibial shaft was performed to determine the effect of the type of treatment, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or closed reduction and intramedullary (IM) nailing, on the occurrence of malalignment. All patients were treated in our clinic between 1993 and 2001 for a fracture in the distal third of the tibia. Twelve patients treated with ORIF were matched to 12 patients treated with IM nailing, with regard to gender, age decade, and the AO classification of the fracture. The group treated with IM nailing was assessed after a mean 6.0 years versus ORIF after a mean of 4.5 years. Two patients treated with ORIF versus six patients treated with IM nailing had a malalignment of the tibia. Furthermore, we found no difference with regard to time to union, non-union, hardware failure or deep infections between ORIF and IM nailing. Our results suggest that control of alignment is difficult with IM nailing of distal tibial fractures. For optimal alignment we advise considering the use of ORIF for closed and type I open extra-articular fractures in the distal third of the tibia

Navigated intraoperative analysis of lower limb alignment

INTRODUCTION: Accurate intraoperative assessment of lower limb alignment is crucial for the treatment of long bone fractures, implantation of knee arthroplasties and correction of deformities. During orthopaedic surgery, exact real time control of the mechanical axis is strongly desirable. The aim of this study was to compare conventional intraoperative analysis of the mechanical axis by the cable method with continuous, 3-dimensional imaging with a navigation system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty legs of fresh human cadaver were randomly assigned to conventional analysis with the cable method (n = 10) or navigated analysis with a fluoroscopy based navigation system (n = 10). The intersection of the mechanical axis with the tibia plateau was presented as percentage of the tibia plateau (beginning with 0% at the medial border and ending with 100% laterally). CT-scans were performed for all legs and the CT-values of the mechanical axis were compared to the measurements after cable method and navigation. Furthermore, the radiation time and dose area product of both groups for single analysis of the mechanical axis was compared. RESULTS: Conventional evaluation of the mechanical axis by the cable method showed 6.0+/-3.1% difference compared to the analysis by CT. In the navigated group the difference was 2.6+/-1.8% (P = 0.008). Radiation time and dose area product were highly significantly lower after conventional measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Navigated intraoperative evaluation of the mechanical axis offers increased accuracy compared to conventional intraoperative analysis. Furthermore, navigation provides continuous control not only of the mechanical axis, but also of the sagittal and transverse plane. Using the cable method, radiation exposure depends on the number of measurements and is lower compared to the navigation system for single intraoperative analysis of the mechanical axis, but may be higher in case of repeated intraoperative measurements