Cargando…

Dilemma of Supra- or Infrapatellar Tibial Nailing: Anterior Knee Pain vs. Intra-Articular Damage

AIM: Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is widely accepted as the treatment of choice for tibial fractures, and a suprapatellar method has been described to prevent common problems associated with the typical infrapatellar IMN technique, such as anterior knee pain. However, in the suprapatellar technique,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Umur, Levent, Sari, Enes, Orhan, Serdar, Sürücü, Serkan, Yildirim, Cengiz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9159120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35685529
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8220030
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is widely accepted as the treatment of choice for tibial fractures, and a suprapatellar method has been described to prevent common problems associated with the typical infrapatellar IMN technique, such as anterior knee pain. However, in the suprapatellar technique, injury to intra-articular structures is a concern. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological results of suprapatellar and infrapatellar IMN in terms of union, complications, and function. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 61 patients who had undergone suprapatellar (n = 29, Group A) or infrapatellar (n = 31, Group B) tibial IMN was conducted. For the suprapatellar group, magnetic resonance imaging scans were acquired on the sixth month follow-up. Complications, radiological findings, functional outcomes, surgery duration, and differences in a range of motion (ROM) were compared. RESULTS: Surgery duration was significantly shorter in Group A (81 mins vs. 107 mins, p < 0.001), and visual analog scale (VAS) values were significantly higher in Group B (0.17 vs. 1.62, p < 0.001). In Group A, the patients' Lysholm scores were significantly higher (95.6 vs. 92, p=0.006). In terms of anterior knee pain, none was experienced in Group A (0%), while 11 patients (26.1%) reported about it in Group B. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in SF-36 score (p=0.925), the radiographic union scale in tibial (RUST) fractures score (p=0.454), union time (p=0.110), or ROM (p=0.691). In Group A, two cases of patellofemoral cartilage degeneration were observed. CONCLUSION: If performed with sufficient expertise, the suprapatellar IMN technique is a safe, reliable technique with a low frequency of anterior knee pain for treating tibial fractures. There is no clear evidence that it causes damage to intra-articular structures. The possibility of patellofemoral cartilage degeneration due to this technique should be further evaluated by prospective studies including pre- and postoperative radiologic assessments.