0
Articles   |    
Interlocking Intramedullary Nailing with and without Reaming for the Treatment of Closed Fractures of the Tibial Shaft. A Prospective, Randomized Study*
P. A. BLACHUT, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C)†; P. J. O'BRIEN, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C)†; R. N. MEEK, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C)†; H. M. BROEKHUYSE, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C)†, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, Vancouver
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1997 May 01;79(5):640-6
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

One hundred and fifty-two patients who had 154 closed fractures of the shaft of the tibia were prospectively randomized to management with interlocking intramedullary nailing either with or without reaming. Thirteen patients who had been randomized to treatment without reaming were switched to the group that had reaming because of technical reasons; these patients were excluded from the analysis of the results. An additional five patients were lost to follow-up. Thus, seventy-two patients (seventy-three fractures) who had been managed with nailing with reaming and sixty-three patients (sixty-three fractures) who had been managed with nailing without reaming were available for follow-up at an average of twelve months (range, three to thirty-three months) postoperatively.The two groups were similar with regard to demographics and the configurations of the fractures. The average total duration of the procedures performed without reaming was eleven minutes shorter than that of the procedures done with reaming (p = 0.0013). The duration of fluoroscopy was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.35, Mann-Whitney test). The average estimated blood loss was identical for the two groups.Seventy fractures (96 per cent) that were treated with nailing with reaming and fifty-six (89 per cent) that were treated with nailing without reaming united without the need for an additional operation (p = 0.19). Because of the small sample size, the study has insufficient power (34.7 per cent) to detect this difference if it is real.There was only one deep infection, which developed after nailing without reaming. The nail fractured after one procedure with reaming. A screw fractured after two procedures with reaming and after ten without reaming (p = 0.012); multiple screws fractured after three procedures in the latter group.Malunion occurred after three nailing procedures with reaming and after two without reaming. Four malunions were of very proximal fractures and one was of a very distal fracture. Seventeen screws and twenty-four nails were removed after nailing with reaming, and twenty screws and nineteen nails were removed after nailing without reaming; neither of these prevalences was significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.27 and 0.89; chi-square test).We concluded that there are no major advantages to nailing without reaming as compared with nailing with reaming for the treatment of closed fractures of the shaft of the tibia. There was a higher prevalence of delayed union and breakage of screws after nailing without reaming.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Guidelines
    Evaluating infants and young children with multiple fractures. -American Academy of Pediatrics | 2/9/2007
    Results provided by:
    PubMed
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    04/02/2014
    WV - Charleston Area Medical Center
    11/15/2013
    LA - Ochsner Health System
    04/02/2014
    LA - Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport
    03/26/2014
    MA - Boston University Orthopedic Surgical Associates