Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Ilizarov external fixation or locked intramedullary nailing in diaphyseal tibial fractures: a randomized, prospective study of 58 consecutive patients
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Ilizarov external fixation or locked intramedullary nailing in diaphyseal tibial fractures: a randomized, prospective study of 58 consecutive patients
Do you wish to request the book?
Ilizarov external fixation or locked intramedullary nailing in diaphyseal tibial fractures: a randomized, prospective study of 58 consecutive patients
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Ilizarov external fixation or locked intramedullary nailing in diaphyseal tibial fractures: a randomized, prospective study of 58 consecutive patients
2014
Overview
Purpose
The aim of this study was to compare the Ilizarov circular fixator (IL) and locked intramedullary nailing (IM).
Patients and methods
Patients with isolated tibia shaft fractures were randomly allocated to either the IL (
n
= 31) or IM (
n
= 27) method. Conventional radiographs, postoperative pain assessment, self-appraisal scores and complications were evaluated. At the clinical 1-year follow-up, the patients were also evaluated by an independent observer.
Results
The minority of patients had open fractures, two and nine patients in the IM and IL groups, respectively. Eight patients in the IM group and four in the IL group sustained major complications (
p
= 0.107). In the IM group, two patients developed compartment syndrome, one deep infection, one hardware failure, one delayed union, one pseudarthrosis and two had a malunion. In the IL group, two patients developed pseudarthrosis and two had a malunion. Superficial pin-site infections were observed in 16 patients in the IL group. The fractures had healed radiographically at 12 weeks in both groups. At the 1-year follow-up, there were differences in pain (VAS) and satisfaction (VAS) scores in favor of IL treatment (VAS,
p
= 0.03 and
p
= 0.02, respectively). There were no differences between the groups with regard to range of motion (ROM) in the knee and ankle joints. The registration of local tenderness and pain revealed that there were 19 patients with anterior knee pain in the IM group and one in the IL group at the 1-year follow-up (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
The IL is a safe and reliable alternative to IM for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures, with a low complication rate and good clinical outcome. Both treatments were well tolerated, but at the 1-year follow-up the patients in the IM group had more pain and were less satisfied. Finally, there was a high frequency of anterior knee pain in the IM group.
