Radiographic and clinical outcomes of distal tibia fractures (3–12 cm proximal to the plafond): Comparison of two intramedullary nailing

BACKGROUND: There are various distal locking options for the repair of tibia distal diametaphyseal fractures with intramedullary nails. There is no consensus about the superiority of any of these distal locking options. In our study, comparing nails with distal bolt locking screw (DSBLS) and conventional nails; we aimed to compare the clinical and radiological results of intramedullary nail models in fixing tibial distal diametaphyseal fractures. METHODS: In our orthopedics and traumatology department, 117 tibial distal diametaphyseal fractures of 116 patients treated with intramedullary nails between August 2007 and May 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Forty-six tibial distal diametaphyseal fractures of 45 patients who came to regular visits to outpatient clinic controls and who had a minimum follow-up of 18 months and whose fracture distance was between 3 and 12 cm were included in the study. The average follow-up period of the study group consisting of 28 males and 17 females with an average age of 44 (16–76 years) which was 48 months (18–100 months). The group using the DSBLS locking intramedullary nail was considered the first group and the group using the conventional distal locking intramedullary nail was considered the second group. Radiological union times, coronal, sagittal, and axial plan angulations and malunion presence were compared between the two groups. In addition, the two groups were compared clinically with length of time spent on weight-bearing and return to work, Olerud-Molander ankle score, and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score scores. RESULTS: We found that the first group was superior in terms of length of time spent on partial and full weight-bearing between the two groups (p=0.00031 and p=0.00007). In addition, the union time of the first group was shorter (p=0.0149). Other radiological or clinical results did not differ significantly between the two groups. In addition, no significant correlation was found between the distance of the fracture from the tibial plate and its angulation. In cases with malunion alone, the fracture line was more distal than those without malunion (p=0.0411). CONCLUSION: Newly developed DSBLS intramedullary nails give as good results as conventional nails in tibia distal diametaphyseal fractures. Due to its ability to loading bone early and have a shorter union time, DSBLS can be safely preferred in distal diametaphyseal fractures and reduce complications from immobilization.