A Comparative Study of Distal Tibia Metaphyseal Fractures in a Series of 50 Patients: Intramedullary Nailing (IMN) Vs Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO)
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | Jan-Jun 2020 | page:17-21 – Tejas Tribhuwan, Chetan Pradhan, Atul Patil, Chetan Puram, Dheeraj Attarde, Parag Sancheti, Ashok Shyam
Author: Tejas Tribhuwan , Chetan Pradhan , Atul Patil , Chetan Puram , Dheeraj Attarde , Parag Sancheti , Ashok Shyam [1,2].
 Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, India.
 Indian Orthopaedic research group, Thane, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Dheeraj Attarde,
Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, India.
Introduction: Multiple treatment modalities have been described for distal tibia metaphyseal fractures but there is no consensus regarding optimal treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare the management of these fractures by intramedullary nailing (IMN) and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) technique by assessing the functional and radiological outcomes and complications.
Methods: 50 patients having distal tibia fractures were studied and divided into two equal groups of IMN and MIPO with a follow-up period of one year. Functional assessment was done using SF-36, LEFS and VAS scores; radiological assessment was done by evaluating the union type and radiological deformity, and complications in both procedures were studied. Various fracture patterns were also considered.
Results: SF-36 showed no statistical significance with regard to treatment mode and fracture type. LEFS score reduced with increase in complexity of fracture and also indicated that both IMN and MIPO groups regained comparable functional capacity after a year. IMN cases (96%) showed better chances of primary union than MIPO cases (72%), after a year. Varus was found in 16% and valgus in 20% of plating cases. AO Type fractures 43 A1 and 43 A2 were preferably treated with nailing whereas 43 A3, with plating.
Conclusion: While union time is shorter for IMN cases, there is a greater occurrence of deformity in MIPO patients. We concluded that both the techniques can provide a similar return of functional capabilities but as the complexity of the fracture increases, nail becomes difficult to use than a plate.
Keywords: IMN; Distal tibia metaphyseal; MIPO; Distal third tibia fractures.
1. Freedman EL, Johnson EE (1995) Radiographic analysis of tibial fracture malalignment following intramedullary nailing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 315, 25–33.
2. Newman SD, Mauffrey CP, Krikler S. Distal metadiaphyseal tibial fractures. Injury. 2011;42:975–84.
3. Blick SS, Brumback RJ, Lakatos R et al. (1989) Early bone grafting of high-energy tibial fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 240:21–41
4. Richard RD, Kubiak E, Horwitz DS. Techniques for the surgical treatment of distal tibia fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45:295–312.
5. Nork SE, Schwartz AK, Agel J, Holt SK, Schrick BS,Winquist RA. Intramedullary nailing of distal metaphyseal tibial fractures. J Bone JtSurg Am. 2005;87-A:1213e1221.
6. Guo JJ, Tang N, Yang HL, Tang TS. A prospective, randomised trial comparing closed intramedullary nailing with percutaneous plating in the treatment of distal metaphyseal fractures of the tibia. J Bone JtSurg Br. 2010;92-B:984e988.
7. Court-Brown CM, Gustilo T, Shaw AD. Knee pain after intramedullary tibial nailing: its incidence, etiology, and outcome. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:103e105.
8. Borg T, Larsson S, Lindsjö U (2004) Percutaneous plating of distal tibial fractures. Preliminary results in 21 patients. Injury 35(6):608–614
9. Hazarika S, Chakravarthy J, Cooper J (2006) Minimally invasive locking plate osteosynthesis for fractures of the distal tibia—results in 20 patients. Injury 37(9):877–887
10. Redfern DJ, Syed SU, Davies SJ (2004) Fractures of the distal tibia: minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis. Injury 35(6):615–620
11. Mosheiff R, Safran O, Segal D, Liebergall M (1999) The unreamed tibial nail in the treatment of distal metaphyseal fractures. Injury 30:83–90.
12. Feng YZ, Hong JJ, Peng L, Shui XL, Tang J, Chen LW, et al. Comparison of two minimally invasive internal fixed methods for the treatment of distal tibiofibula. Chin J Surg 2011;2:113–8.
13. Vallier HA, Cureton BA, Patterson BM. Randomized, prospective comparison of plating versus intramedullary nail fixation for distal tibia shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2011;25:736–41.
14. Chen N, He QQ. Clinical analysis for two fixation methods in distal tibiofibular fracture. Chin Prac Med 2008;3:116–7.
15. Zhang C, Jiang Y, An ZQ. Interlocking intramedullary nailing versus percutaneous plating in osteosynthesis of metaphyseal fractures of distal tibia. Chin J Orthop Trauma 2007;9:131–4.
16. Li Y, Liu L, Tang X, Pei F, Wang G, Fang Y, et al. Comparison of low, multidirectional locked nailing and plating in the treatment of distal tibial metadiaphyseal fractures. Int Orthop 2012;36:1457–62.
17. Yang SW, Tzeng HM, Chou YJ, Teng HP, Liu HH, Wong CY. Treatment of distal tibial metaphyseal fractures: plating versus shortened intramedullary nailing. Injury 2006;37:531–5.
18. Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker. The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Frist ed. Berlin Heidelberg Newyork: Springer-Verlag,1990
19. Jayesh V Vaza, Bhoomika R Chauhan, Girish R Chauhan, Pradip R Chauhan (2014) Comparative study of plating versus nailing in distal tibia metaphyseal fractures; Natl J Med Res. 2014; 4(4): 340-344, print ISSN: 2249 4995│eISSN: 2277 8810
20. Im GI, Tae SK (2005); Distal metaphyseal fractures of tibia: a prospective randomized trial of closed reduction and intramedullary nail versus open reduction and plate and screws fixation J Trauma. 2005 Nov;59(5):1219-23; discussion 1223
21. Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ (1987); Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Jun;69(5):745-9.
22. Mudgal Ashwani (2016), Daolagupu Arup K., Agarwala Vikash and Sinha Abhinit K Management of fractures of the extra articular distal tibia by minimally invasive plate Osteosynthesis—A prospective series of 21 patients. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences, 2016, 5, 6:276-282
23. Kasper W. Janssen, Jan Biert, and Albert van Kampen Treatment of distal tibial fractures: plate versus nail A retrospective outcome analysis of matched pairs of patients Int Orthop. 2007 Oct; 31(5): 709–714.
24. Piątkowski, K., Piekarczyk, P., Kwiatkowski, K. et al. (2015); Comparison of different locking plate fixation methods in distal tibia fractures. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) (2015) 39: 2245. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2906-4
25. Robinson CM, McLauchlan GJ, Mc Lean IP, Court-Brown CM (1995) Distal metaphyseal fractures of tibia with minimal involvement of ankle: classification and treatment by locked intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77: 781-787.
26. Ruecker AH, et al. Distal Tibial Fractures: Intramedullary Nailing. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2009;35:520–6.
|How to Cite this article: Tribhuwan T, Pradhan C, Patil A, Puram C, Attarde D, Sancheti P, Shyam A | A Comparative Study of Distal Tibia Metaphyseal Fractures in a Series of 50 Patients: Intramedullary Nailing (IMN) VS Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO)| Trauma International | January-June 2020; 6(1):17-21.|