Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study compares outcomes of gunshot and Gustilo-Anderson type I tibial fractures, indicating infection risk differences.
Background Tibial shaft fractures caused by low-energy gunshot injuries represent a rare but challenging clinical problem. The optimal treatment approach, particularly in comparison with Gustilo-Anderson Type I open fractures, remains controversial. Methods This was a retrospective comparative study that included patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. Group 1 consisted of low-energy gunshot-induced fractures, while Group 2 included Gustilo-Anderson Type I open fractures. Demographic data, union time, Radiographic Union Score for Tibial Fractures (RUST), Johner-Wruhs functional classification, need for additional surgical intervention, and infection rates were compared. Results A total of 128 patients were included (68 in Group 1 and 60 in Group 2). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding demographic characteristics, follow-up duration, union time, RUST scores, or Johner–Wruhs functional outcomes ( p > 0.05). However, the infection rate was significantly higher in the low-energy gunshot group compared with the Gustilo–Anderson type I group (20.6% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.020).Nonunion and reoperation rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion Intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures caused by low-energy gunshot injuries provides clinical and radiological outcomes comparable to those observed in Gustilo–Anderson type I open fractures. Nevertheless, these injuries appear to be associated with a higher risk of infection, warranting careful perioperative management and closer postoperative surveillance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bayram et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: