SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

The management of segmental tibial shaft fractures: A systematic review.

McMahon, SE; Little, ZE; Smith, TO; Trompeter, A; Hing, CB (2016) The management of segmental tibial shaft fractures: A systematic review. Injury, 47 (3). pp. 568-573. ISSN 1879-0267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.11.022
SGUL Authors: Trompeter, Alex Joel Hing, Caroline Blanca

[img]
Preview
PDF Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (76kB) | Preview

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries associated with significant soft tissue damage that are difficult to treat. This study aimed to identify the most effective method of treating segmental tibial fractures. METHOD: A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted. Studies investigating the management of segmental tibial fractures with intramedullary nail fixation (IMN), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or circular external fixation (CEF) were included for review. The primary outcome measure was time to fracture union. Secondary outcomes were complications and functional outcome. A narrative analysis was undertaken as meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity of the data. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible and included. No randomised controlled trials were identified. Fixation with an intramedullary nail provided the fastest time to union, followed by open reduction and internal fixation and then CEF. The rate of deep infection was highest after IMN (5/162 [3%]), followed by open reduction and internal fixation (2/78 [2.5%]) and CEF (1/54 [2%]). However, some studies reported particularly high rates of infection following IMN for open segmental tibial fractures. There was limited reporting of postoperative deformities. From the studies that did include such data, there was a higher rate of deformity following ORIF (8/53 [15%]), compared to IMN (13/138 [9%]), and CEF (4/44 [9%]). Three studies, not including IMN, described patient reported outcome measures with results ranging from 'excellent' to 'fair'. DISCUSSION: The available evidence was of poor quality, dominated by retrospective case series. This prevented statistical analysis, and precludes firm conclusions being drawn from the results available. CONCLUSION: IMN has the fastest time to fracture union, however there are concerns regarding an increased deep infection rate in open segmental tibial fractures. In this subgroup, the data suggests CEF provides the most satisfactory results. However, the available literature does not provide sufficient detail to make this statement with certainty. We recommend a randomised controlled study to further investigate this challenging problem.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © 2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Keywords: Comparison, External fixation, Intramedullary nailing, Open reduction and internal fixation, Segmental, Systematic review, Tibial fracture, Bone Nails, Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary, Fracture Healing, Fractures, Open, Humans, Recovery of Function, Soft Tissue Injuries, Tibial Fractures, Treatment Outcome, Humans, Fractures, Open, Tibial Fractures, Soft Tissue Injuries, Treatment Outcome, Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary, Bone Nails, Recovery of Function, Fracture Healing, Tibial fracture, Segmental, Systematic review, External fixation, Intramedullary nailing, Open reduction and internal fixation, Comparison, 1103 Clinical Sciences, Orthopedics, 1110 Nursing, 1117 Public Health and Health Services
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Institute of Medical & Biomedical Education (IMBE)
Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS)
Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS) > Vascular & Cardiac Surgery (INCCVC)
Journal or Publication Title: Injury
ISSN: 1879-0267
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
March 2016Published
23 November 2015Published Online
15 November 2015Accepted
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0
PubMed ID: 26776463
Web of Science ID: WOS:000371988400009
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/108647
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.11.022

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item