SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 10

Which is superior in the treatment of AO Type 42A tibial shaft fracture? A comparison of talon intramedullary nailing and conventional locked intramedullary nailing

Sezgin Bahadır Tekin
Ahmet Mert
Bahri Bozgeyik
Pages
1514–1520
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, there were significant differences between both groups in terms of time to union, nonunion rate, and the number of fluoroscopy shots captured (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of conventional locked intramedullary nailing (IMN) and talon IMN in AO Type 42A tibial fractures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: A total of 93 patients with AO Type 42A fracture were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, there were significant differences between both groups in terms of time to union, nonunion rate, and the number of fluoroscopy shots captured (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of conventional locked intramedullary nailing (IMN) and talon IMN in AO Type 42A tibial fractures. METHODS: A total of 93 patients with AO Type 42A fracture were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: Those treated with conventional IMN (Group 1), and those treated with talon distal locked nailing (Group 2). The patients were statistically compared in terms of age, sex, mechanism of injury, follow-up time, time to union, smoking status, presence of open fracture, presence of concomitant fibula fracture, development of malunion and nonunion, and the number of intraoperative fluoros- copy shots captured. All patients were evaluated with American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores for clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (68 men and 35 women) participated in the study. Group 1 consisted of 35 (71.4%) men and 14 (28.6%) women, a total of 49 patients, while Group 2 consisted of 33 (75%) men and 11 (25%) women, a total of 44 patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, mechanism of injury, follow-up times, smoking status, concomitant fibula fracture, presence of malunion, and presence of open fracture (p>0.05). However, there were significant differences between both groups in terms of time to union, nonunion rate, and the number of fluoroscopy shots captured (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Tekin, S. B., Mert, A., Bozgeyik, B. (2022). Which is superior in the treatment of AO Type 42A tibial shaft fracture? A comparison of talon intramedullary nailing and conventional locked intramedullary nailing. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 10, 1514–1520. https://ajindex.com/articles/643965

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Madanagopal SG, Seligson D, Roberts CS. The antibiotic cement nail for infection after tibial nailing. Orthopaedics 2004;27:709–12
  2. Russel GV, Pearsall AW. Intramedullary nailing of distal tibial fractures: A technique to prevent malalignment. Orthopedics 2003;26:183–5
  3. Court-Brown CM, Cristie J, McQeen MM. Closed intramedullary tibial nailing, its use in closed and Type I open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 1990;72:605–11
  4. Obremskey WT, Medina M. Comparison of intramedullary nailing of distal third tibial shaft fractures: Before and after traumatologists. Ortho- paedics 2004;27:1180–4
  5. Shah RK, Moehring HD, Singh RP, Dhakal A. Surgical implant gener- ation network (SIGN) intramedullary nailing of open fractures of the tibia. Int Orthop 2004;28:163–6
  6. Watson JT. Treatment of unstable fractures of the shaft of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg 1994;76A:1575–84
  7. Basaran T, Calbiyik M, Basaran PÖ, Hassa E, Ipek D. Blade expandable intramedullary nails for fixation of tibial shaft fractures. Acta Orthop Belg 2019;85:472–6
  8. Calafi LA, Antkowiak T, Curtiss S, Neu CP, Moehring D. A biomechan- ical comparison of the surgical implant generation network (SIGN) tibial nail with the standard hollow nail. Injury 2010;41:753–7
  9. Chmielnicki M, Prokop A. Treatment of tibial shaft fractures with the stable angle tibial Nail Targon TX. Z Orthop Unfall 2016;154:524–6
  10. Alemdaroğlu KB, İltar S, Ozturk A, Gültaç E, Yücens M, Aydoğan NH. The role of biplanar distal locking in intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2019;7:33–7
  11. Hapa O, Muratli HH, Yüksel HY, Celebi L, Doğruyol D, Biçimoğlu A. Single or double distal locking in intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures: A prospective randomized study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2010;16:33–7
  12. Çamurcu Y, Sofu H, Issın A, Koçkara N, Genç E, Çetinkaya M. Is talon tibial intramedullary nailing clinically superior compared to conventional locked nailing? Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2017;28:152–7
  13. Leunig M, Hertel R. Thermal necrosis after tibial reaming for in- tramedullary nail fixation: A report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg 1996;78:584–7
  14. Ochsner PE, Baumgart F, Kohler G. Heat-induced segmental necrosis after reaming of one humeral and two tibial fractures with a narrow med- ullary canal. Injury 1998;29:B1–10
  15. Bone LB, Sucato D, Stegemann PM, Rohrbacher BJ. Displaced isolated- fractures of the tibial shaft treated with a castor intramedullary nailing.