SORA

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

The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice?

Little, Z; Smith, TO; McMahon, SE; Cooper, C; Trompeter, A; Pearse, M; Britten, S; Rogers, B; Sharma, H; Narayan, B; et al. Little, Z; Smith, TO; McMahon, SE; Cooper, C; Trompeter, A; Pearse, M; Britten, S; Rogers, B; Sharma, H; Narayan, B; Costa, M; Beard, DJ; Hing, CB (2017) The treatment of segmental tibial fractures: does patient preference differ from surgeon choice? Injury, 48 (10). pp. 2306-2310. ISSN 1879-0267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.014
SGUL Authors: Hing, Caroline Blanca Trompeter, Alex Joel

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

Download (332kB) | Preview

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Segmental tibial fractures are complex injuries with a prolonged recovery time. Current definitive treatment options include intramedullary fixation or a circular external fixator. However, there is uncertainty as to which surgical option is preferable and there are no sufficiently rigorous multi-centre trials that have answered this question. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing intramedullary nailing to the application of a circular external fixator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A convenience questionnaire survey of attending surgeons was conducted during the United Kingdom's Orthopaedic Trauma Society annual meeting 2017 to determine the treatment modalities used for a segmental tibial fracture (n=63). Patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients who had been treated for a segmental tibial fracture as part of a patient and public involvement focus group with questions covering the domains of surgical preference, treatment expectations, outcome, the consent process and follow-up regime (n=5). RESULTS: Based on the surgeon survey, 39% routinely use circular frame fixation following segmental tibial fracture compared to 61% who use nail fixation. Nail fixation was reported as the treatment of choice for a closed injury in a healthy patient in 81% of surgeons, and by 86% for a patient with a closed fracture who was obese. Twenty-one percent reported that they would use a nail for an open segmental tibia fracture in diabetics who smoked, whilst 57% would opt for a nail for a closed injury with compartment syndrome, and only 27% would use a nail for an open segmental injury in a young fit sports person. The patient and public preference exercise identified that sleep, early functional outcomes and psychosocial measures of outcomes are important. CONCLUSION: We concluded that a RCT comparing definitive fixation with an intramedullary nail and a circular external fixator is justified as there remains uncertainty on the optimal surgical management for segmental tibial fractures. Furthermore, psychosocial factors and early post-operative outcomes should be reported as core outcome measures as part of such a trial.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © 2017. 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: Fracture, Preference, Segmental, Surgeon, Tibia, Trial, Fracture, Preference, Segmental, Surgeon, Tibia, Trial, Orthopedics, 1103 Clinical Sciences, 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
October 2017Published
9 August 2017Published Online
6 August 2017Accepted
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
UNSPECIFIEDArthritis Research UKhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000341
UNSPECIFIEDNational Institute for Health Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272
PubMed ID: 28818324
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/109119
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.014

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item