Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To compare intramedullary nailing (IMN) with external fixation (EF) in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures located within 5 cm of the ankle. SETTING: University teaching hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. PATIENTS: Sixty-seven patients with a mean age of 48 years (range, 16-78 years; 24 women, 43 men). INTERVENTION: Thirty-three fractures were treated with EF from 1998 to 2004 and 34 fractures were treated with reamed IMN from 2004 to 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Olerud-Molander ankle score, RAND-36 Item Health Survey, and the number of secondary interventions. RESULTS: The healing time was 21 weeks in the IMN group and 23 weeks in the EF group (P = 0.53). One fracture in the IMN group and three in the EF group malunited (P = 0.62). Olerud-Molander ankle score was 75 in the IMN group and 74 in the EF group (P = 0.51). There was no difference in any of the RAND-36 subscores measuring physical functioning. More patients in the EF group had secondary intervention resulting from delayed healing (8 versus 1, P = 0.03). The patients in the EF group also needed more secondary interventions as a result of any complication (15 versus 2, P < 0.001). There was one deep infection in the IMN group. CONCLUSION: Distal extra-articular or simple intra-articular fractures can be treated with modern IMNs or nonbridging EF. Although functional results are similar, EF carries a significant greater risk of secondary interventions; based on these data, IMN is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ristiniemi et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: