Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail

Ibrahim Natalwala, Cher Bing Chuo, Isla Shariatmadari, Gavin Barlow, Elizabeth Moulder, Joanna Bates, Hemant Sharma

Keywords : Circular frame, Intramedullary nail, Open fracture, Tibia

Citation Information : Natalwala I, Chuo CB, Shariatmadari I, Barlow G, Moulder E, Bates J, Sharma H. Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail. 2021; 16 (3):161-167.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1536

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Published Online: 15-01-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: High-energy grade III open fractures of tibia are associated with significant complications and generate debate over the ideal fixation method. This study compares the clinical outcomes for circular frame fixation (CFF) vs intramedullary nail fixation (IMF) in grade III open tibial fractures. Materials and methods: Single-centre retrospective study of patients admitted from January 2008 to December 2016. All patients with grade III open diaphyseal tibial fractures (AO 42 A, B, C), treated with either CFF or IMF, were included. The primary outcome was deep bone infection (DBI). Secondary outcomes were delayed or non-union, secondary intervention, and amputation. Results: A total of 48 limbs in 47 patients had CFF, and 25 limbs in 23 patients had IMF. Median time to definitive fixation was significantly longer for CFF at 9 days (IQR 3–13) compared to IMF at 1 day (IQR 0–3.5) (p <0.001). The DBI rate was significantly lower (2 vs 16%) in the CFF group (p = 0.04). There were 14 limbs (29%) with delayed or non-union in the CFF group vs 5 limbs (20%) in the IMF group. In the CFF group, significantly more limbs required bone grafting for delayed or non-union (p = 0.03). However, there was a greater proportion of limbs in the CFF group with segmental fractures or bone loss (46 vs 4%) and these high-energy fracture patterns were associated with secondary bone grafting (p = 0.005), and with delayed or non-union (p = 0.03). A subgroup analysis of patients without segmental fractures or bone loss treated with either CFF or IMF showed no significant difference in secondary bone grafting (p >0.99) and delayed or non-union rates (p = 0.72). Overall, one patient in each group went on to have an amputation. Conclusion: Our study found that CFF had a lower rate of DBI compared to IMF. Injuries with high-energy fracture patterns (segmental fractures or bone loss) were more likely to have delayed or non-union and require secondary bone grafting. These factors should be considered when selecting the appropriate method of definitive fixation.


PDF Share
  1. Eccles S, Handley B, Khan U, et al. Standards for the management of open fractures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
  2. Court-Brown CM, Bugler KE, Clement ND, et al. The epidemiology of open fractures in adults. A 15-year review. Injury 2012;43(6):891–897. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.12.007.
  3. Morgenstern M, Vallejo A, McNally MA, et al. The effect of local antibiotic prophylaxis when treating open limb fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res 2018;7(7): 447–456. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.77.BJR-2018-0043.R1.
  4. Tissingh EK, Memarzadeh A, Queally J, et al. Open lower limb fractures in major trauma centers – a loss leader? Injury 2017;48(2):353–356. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.12.017.
  5. Olesen UK, Pedersen NJ, Eckardt H, et al. The cost of infection in severe open tibial fractures treated with a free flap. Int Orthop 2017;41(5):1049–1055. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3337-6.
  6. Papakostidis C, Kanakaris NK, Pretel J, et al. Prevalence of complications of open tibial shaft fractures stratified as per the Gustilo-Anderson classification. Injury 2011;42(12):1408–1415. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.015.
  7. Dickson DR, Moulder E, Hadland Y, et al. Grade 3 open tibial shaft fractures treated with a circular frame, functional outcome and systematic review of literature. Injury 2015;46(4):751–758. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.01.025.
  8. Mundi R, Chaudhry H, Niroopan G, et al. Open tibial fractures: updated guidelines for management. JBJS Rev 2015;3(2):1–7. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.N.00051.
  9. Zhang F, Zhu Y, Li W, et al. Unreamed Intramedullary Nailing is a better alternative than External Fixator for Gustilo grade IIIB Tibial Fractures based on a meta-analysis. Scand J Surg 2016;105(2):117–124. DOI: 10.1177/1457496915586649.
  10. Fu Q, Zhu L, Lu J, et al. External fixation versus unreamed tibial intramedullary nailing for open tibial fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):12753. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30716-y.
  11. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (Severe) open fractures. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 1984;24(8):742–746. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-198408000-00009.
  12. Repo J. Microvascular reconstruction of traumatic compound bone and soft tissue defects of the tibia and ankle: long-term patient-reported outcomes. 2017. Available from: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/169990/MICROVAS.pdf?sequence=1.
  13. Metsemakers WJ, Morgenstern M, McNally MA, et al. Fracture-related infection: a consensus on definition from an international expert group. Injury 2018;49(3):505–510. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017. 08.040.
  14. Borrelli J, Prickett W, Song E, et al. Extraosseous blood supply of the tibia and the effects of different plating techniques: a human cadaveric study. J Orthop Trauma 2002;16(10):691–695. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200211000-00002.
  15. Smith SR, Bronk JT, Kelly PJ. Effect of fracture fixation on cortical bone blood flow. J Orthop Res 1990;8(4):471–478. DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100080402.
  16. Schemitsch EH, Kowalski MJ, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Cortical bone blood flow in reamed and unreamed locked intramedullary nailing: a fractured tibia model in sheep. J Orthop Trauma 1994;8(5):373–382. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-199410000-00002.
  17. Schemitsch EH, Kowalski MJ, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Comparison of the effect of reamed and unreamed locked intramedullary nailing on blood flow in the callus and strength of union following fracture of the sheep tibia. J Orthop Res 1995;13(3):382–389. DOI: 10.1002/jor. 1100130312.
  18. Xia L, Zhou J, Zhang Y, et al. A meta-analysis of reamed versus unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of closed tibial fractures. Orthopedics 2014;37(4):e332. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20140401-52.
  19. Shao Y, Zou H, Chen S, et al. Meta-analysis of reamed versus unreamed intramedullary nailing for open tibial fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 2014;9:74. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0074-7.
  20. Tornetta P 3rd, DeMarco C. Intramedullary nailing after external fixation of the tibia. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 1995;54(1):5–13. PMID: 8541783.
  21. Yokoyama K, Uchino M, Nakamura K, et al. Risk factors for deep infection in secondary intramedullary nailing after external fixation for open tibial fractures. Injury 2006;37(6):554–560. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.08.026.
  22. Bhandari M, Zlowodzki M, Tornetta P, et al. Intramedullary nailing following external fixation in femoral and tibial shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19(2):140–144. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200502000- 00012.
  23. Santolini E, West R, Giannoudis PV. Risk factors for long bone fracture non-union: a stratification approach based on the level of the existing scientific evidence. Injury 2015;46:S8–S19. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(15)30049-8.
  24. Dervin GF. Skeletal fixation of grade IIIB tibial fractures: The potential of metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;(332):10–15. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199611000-00003.
  25. Fang X, Jiang L, Wang Y, et al. Treatment of Gustilo grade III tibial fractures with unreamed intramedullary nailing versus external fixator: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit 2012;18(4):RA49–RA56. DOI: 10.12659/msm.882610.
  26. Giovannini F, de Palma L, Panfighi A, et al. Intramedullary nailing versus external fixation in Gustilo type III open tibial shaft fractures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2016;11(1):1–4. DOI: 10.1007/s11751-016-0245-7.
  27. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Jt Surg – Ser B 2001;83(1): 62–68. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.83b1.10986.
  28. Inan M, Halici M, Ayan I, et al. Treatment of type IIIA open fractures of tibial shaft with Ilizarov external fixator versus unreamed tibial nailing. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2007;127(8):617–623. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-007-0332-9.
  29. Whitelaw G, Wetzler M, Nelson A, et al. Ender rods versus external fixation in the treatment of open tibial fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;(253):258–269. PMID: 2317982.
  30. Holbrook JL, Swiontkowski MF, Sanders R. Treatment of open fractures of the tibial shaft: ender nailing versus external fixation. A randomized, prospective comparison. J Bone Jt Surg Am 1989;71(8):1231–1238. PMID: 2777852.
  31. Alberts KA, Loohagen G, Einarsdottir H. Open tibial fractures: faster union after unreamed nailing than external fixation. Injury 1999;30(8):519–523. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(99)00143-6.
  32. Mohseni MA, Soleimanpour J, Mohammadpour H, et al. AO tubular external fixation vs unreamed intramedullary nailing in open grade IIIA-IIIB tibial shaft fractures: a single-center randomized clinical trial. Pakistan J Biol Sci 2011;14(8):490–495. DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2011.490.495.
  33. Foote CJ, Guyatt GH, Vignesh KN, et al. Which surgical treatment for open tibial shaft fractures results in the fewest reoperations? A network meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473(7):2179–2192. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4224-y.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.