The role of biplanar distal locking in intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures

Background: To compare the union times of the uncomplicated tibial shaft fractures, which were distally locked by two coronal and one sagittal screws and by only two coronal screws. Methods: 45 patients with tibial shaft treated with intramedullary nailing included in this study. 23 of 45 fractures were treated with uniplanar two distal interlocking (Group 1) and 22 fractures were treated with biplanar three distal interlocking (Group 2). Patients with closed fractures treated by closed nailing and having a full set of radiographs on PACS system was included. Fracture unions were evaluated by two authors. Results: Union time was significantly shorter in biplanar distal interlocking group (Group 2) compared to uniplanar distal interlocking group (Group 1) (P=0.02). Mean union time in groups 1 and 2 were 14.63±4.5 and 10.77±3.0 weeks, respectively .When only distal third tibial shaft fractures were evaluated, Group 2 [11.2±3.1 weeks (n:17)] had significantly lower union time compared to Group 1 [15.07±4.8 weeks (n:14)] (P=0.01). Inter-observer reliability for fracture union times was high with rho= 0.89 with SE of 0.51 (P<0.001). Conclusion: Biplanar distal interlocking procedure had a significantly shorter union time. Biplanar distal interlocking procedure allows a faster fracture union probably because of a more stable fixation construct. © 2019 BY THE ARCHIVES OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY

The role of biplanar distal locking in intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures

Background: To compare the union times of the uncomplicated tibial shaft fractures, which were distally locked by two coronal and one sagittal screws and by only two coronal screws. Methods: 45 patients with tibial shaft treated with intramedullary nailing included in this study. 23 of 45 fractures were treated with uniplanar two distal interlocking (Group 1) and 22 fractures were treated with biplanar three distal interlocking (Group 2). Patients with closed fractures treated by closed nailing and having a full set of radiographs on PACS system was included. Fracture unions were evaluated by two authors. Results: Union time was significantly shorter in biplanar distal interlocking group (Group 2) compared to uniplanar distal interlocking group (Group 1) (P=0.02). Mean union time in groups 1 and 2 were 14.63±4.5 and 10.77±3.0 weeks, respectively .When only distal third tibial shaft fractures were evaluated, Group 2 [11.2±3.1 weeks (n:17)] had significantly lower union time compared to Group 1 [15.07±4.8 weeks (n:14)] (P=0.01). Inter-observer reliability for fracture union times was high with rho= 0.89 with SE of 0.51 (P<0.001). Conclusion: Biplanar distal interlocking procedure had a significantly shorter union time. Biplanar distal interlocking procedure allows a faster fracture union probably because of a more stable fixation construct. © 2019 BY THE ARCHIVES OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY

The Role of Biplanar Distal Locking in Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures.

BACKGROUND: To compare the union times of the uncomplicated tibial shaft fractures, which were distally locked by two coronal and one sagittal screws and by only two coronal screws. METHODS: 45 patients with tibial shaft treated with intramedullary nailing included in this study. 23 of 45 fractures were treated with uniplanar two distal interlocking (Group 1) and 22 fractures were treated with biplanar three distal interlocking (Group 2). Patients with closed fractures treated by closed nailing and having a full set of radiographs on PACS system was included. Fracture unions were evaluated by two authors. RESULTS: Union time was significantly shorter in biplanar distal interlocking group (Group 2) compared to uniplanar distal interlocking group (Group 1) (P=0.02). Mean union time in groups 1 and 2 were 14.63±4.5 and 10.77±3.0 weeks, respectively .When only distal third tibial shaft fractures were evaluated, Group 2 [11.2±3.1 weeks (n:17)] had significantly lower union time compared to Group 1 [15.07±4.8 weeks (n:14)] (P=0.01). Inter-observer reliability for fracture union times was high with rho= 0.89 with SE of 0.51 (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Biplanar distal interlocking procedure had a significantly shorter union time. Biplanar distal interlocking procedure allows a faster fracture union probably because of a more stable fixation construct