Cargando…
Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation
BACKGROUND: When lengthening the tibia segment using motorized internal lengthening nails (MILN), undesired distal migration of the proximal fibula segment is prevented by tibiofibular stabilization, traditionally using a screw. A tightened cortical suspensory fixation rope (tether) is an alternativ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10349522/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37452380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03771-z |
_version_ | 1785073926268780544 |
---|---|
author | Wongcharoenwatana, Jidapa Hoellwarth, Jason S. Greenstein, Michael D. Reif, Taylor J. Fragomen, Austin T. Rozbruch, S. Robert |
author_facet | Wongcharoenwatana, Jidapa Hoellwarth, Jason S. Greenstein, Michael D. Reif, Taylor J. Fragomen, Austin T. Rozbruch, S. Robert |
author_sort | Wongcharoenwatana, Jidapa |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: When lengthening the tibia segment using motorized internal lengthening nails (MILN), undesired distal migration of the proximal fibula segment is prevented by tibiofibular stabilization, traditionally using a screw. A tightened cortical suspensory fixation rope (tether) is an alternative option, but its appropriateness has never been studied. The primary outcome was comparing the amount of proximal fibular migration between patients who were stabilized with either a tether or a screw. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the effect of fibular migration on the clinical outcome between both groups. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent tibial lengthening with MILN between April 2016 and June 2022. Two cohorts were compared: 18 limbs with tether fixation versus 29 limbs with screw fixation. Data on the patient's age, sex, etiologies, and clinical outcomes were collected. Radiographic measurements included the lengthening distance and the amount of proximal fibular migration. RESULTS: In total, 47 limbs from 41 patients, with average age 35.01 ± 13.72 years old. There were 28 males (68.29%) and 13 females (31.71%). The tether group demonstrated a statistically significant greater distance of migration than the screw group (p < 0.001), with an average migration distance of 8.39 ± 5.09 mm and 2.59 ± 3.06 mm, respectively. No correlation was found between the amount of tibial lengthening and the distance of proximal fibular migration in both the tether group (p = 0.96) and the screw group (p = 0.32). There was no significant difference in the change of knee extension between both groups (p = 0.3), and no patients reported knee pain or tightness. CONCLUSION: A screw provides better resistance to proximal tibiofibular joint migration during MILN lengthening, but the difference appears clinically inconsequential. Either option appears suitable. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10349522 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103495222023-07-16 Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation Wongcharoenwatana, Jidapa Hoellwarth, Jason S. Greenstein, Michael D. Reif, Taylor J. Fragomen, Austin T. Rozbruch, S. Robert J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: When lengthening the tibia segment using motorized internal lengthening nails (MILN), undesired distal migration of the proximal fibula segment is prevented by tibiofibular stabilization, traditionally using a screw. A tightened cortical suspensory fixation rope (tether) is an alternative option, but its appropriateness has never been studied. The primary outcome was comparing the amount of proximal fibular migration between patients who were stabilized with either a tether or a screw. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the effect of fibular migration on the clinical outcome between both groups. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent tibial lengthening with MILN between April 2016 and June 2022. Two cohorts were compared: 18 limbs with tether fixation versus 29 limbs with screw fixation. Data on the patient's age, sex, etiologies, and clinical outcomes were collected. Radiographic measurements included the lengthening distance and the amount of proximal fibular migration. RESULTS: In total, 47 limbs from 41 patients, with average age 35.01 ± 13.72 years old. There were 28 males (68.29%) and 13 females (31.71%). The tether group demonstrated a statistically significant greater distance of migration than the screw group (p < 0.001), with an average migration distance of 8.39 ± 5.09 mm and 2.59 ± 3.06 mm, respectively. No correlation was found between the amount of tibial lengthening and the distance of proximal fibular migration in both the tether group (p = 0.96) and the screw group (p = 0.32). There was no significant difference in the change of knee extension between both groups (p = 0.3), and no patients reported knee pain or tightness. CONCLUSION: A screw provides better resistance to proximal tibiofibular joint migration during MILN lengthening, but the difference appears clinically inconsequential. Either option appears suitable. BioMed Central 2023-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10349522/ /pubmed/37452380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03771-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wongcharoenwatana, Jidapa Hoellwarth, Jason S. Greenstein, Michael D. Reif, Taylor J. Fragomen, Austin T. Rozbruch, S. Robert Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation |
title | Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation |
title_full | Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation |
title_fullStr | Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation |
title_short | Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation |
title_sort | comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10349522/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37452380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03771-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wongcharoenwatanajidapa comparativefixationdevicesforpreventingmigrationoftheproximaltibiofibularjointduringtibiallengtheningatetherversusscrewfixation AT hoellwarthjasons comparativefixationdevicesforpreventingmigrationoftheproximaltibiofibularjointduringtibiallengtheningatetherversusscrewfixation AT greensteinmichaeld comparativefixationdevicesforpreventingmigrationoftheproximaltibiofibularjointduringtibiallengtheningatetherversusscrewfixation AT reiftaylorj comparativefixationdevicesforpreventingmigrationoftheproximaltibiofibularjointduringtibiallengtheningatetherversusscrewfixation AT fragomenaustint comparativefixationdevicesforpreventingmigrationoftheproximaltibiofibularjointduringtibiallengtheningatetherversusscrewfixation AT rozbruchsrobert comparativefixationdevicesforpreventingmigrationoftheproximaltibiofibularjointduringtibiallengtheningatetherversusscrewfixation |