Unreamed Intramedullary Nailing Versus External Fixation for the Treatment of Open Tibial Shaft Fractures in Uganda: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Functional Outcomes After Modern External Ring Fixation or Internal Fixation for Severe Open Tibial Shaft Fractures

BACKGROUND

This study compared the functional outcomes of patients with open tibial shaft fractures who were randomized to either modern external ring fixation (EF) or internal fixation (IF). We hypothesized that there would be differences in patient-reported function between the treatment groups.

METHODS

This preplanned analysis of secondary outcomes from the FIXIT study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial, included patients 18 to 64 years of age with a Gustilo-Anderson Type-IIIB or severe-Type IIIA diaphyseal or metaphyseal tibial fracture who were randomly assigned to either IF (n = 132) or EF (n = 122). Follow-up visits occurred at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Outcomes included Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) physical component score (PCS), use of ambulatory assistive devices, and ability to ambulate.

RESULTS

The mean VR-12 PCS was slightly higher (better) for IF (24.8) than for EF (22.6) at 3 months (mean difference, 2.2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2, 4.3]; p = 0.03) and trended higher for IF (27.0) compared with EF (25.3) at 6 months (mean difference, 1.8 [95% CI: -0.9, 4.4]; p = 0.19). However, there was no difference between the groups at 12 months. There were no clinically important or significant differences in SMFA Dysfunction and Bother scores between the treatment groups at any time point. EF was associated with a higher risk of using any ambulatory assistive device at 6 months (relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.21, 1.82]; p < 0.0001). The absolute percentage of patients using any ambulatory device was 37.6% for IF and 45.4% for EF at 1 year. There was no difference in ambulatory status between the treatment groups at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in physical function between patients with severe tibial fractures treated with IF versus EF. There was a high rate of impairment overall. Assistive devices for walking were more often utilized in the EF group at 6 months, and both treatment groups demonstrated similar overall impairment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

There is no correlation between differences in adverse events and differences in patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

A recovery without adverse events is a top priority of orthopaedic trauma patients, however many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are only powered to detect a difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). While it may be assumed that differences in major adverse event rates between treatment groups will result in differences in PROMs, this has not been established. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of RCTs to evaluate if differences in these outcomes were correlated.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted of online databases to identify RCTs in orthopaedic trauma fracture management that reported both major adverse events and PROMs. Adverse events included secondary surgeries or complications that could negatively affect long-term outcomes (nonunion, chronic regional pain syndrome, etc.). The correlation between a difference (p < 0.05) in adverse events and a difference in PROMs was assessed.

RESULTS

The systematic review yielded 30 RCTs involving 6,769 patients. The primary outcome was a continuous PROM in 70.0 % (21/30). A difference in major adverse events was reported in 23.3 % (7/30) and a difference in PROMs was reported in 6.7 % (2/30). Studies reporting a difference in adverse events, compared to those that did not, were not more likely to report a difference in PROMs (14.3 % (1/7) vs. 4.3 % (1/23); p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no correlation between differences in adverse event rates and differences in PROMs in orthopaedic trauma RCTs. Investigators should consider powering studies to detect differences in the major adverse events that both patients and surgeons wish to avoid.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

What outcomes do patients value after orthopaedic trauma: A best-worst scaling choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

Patient-centered treatment and research should focus on the outcomes that matter to patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the outcome preferences of patients after musculoskeletal trauma. The secondary aim was to identify discrepancies between outcome preferences of surgeons and patients.

METHODS

A Best-worst scaling choice experiment survey was administered to patients with operative lower extremity injuries and orthopaedic surgeons who take trauma call. Participants completed 13 choice sets of 3 randomly-ordered outcomes, including: a full recovery (back to normal) without any problems; a problem that requires additional surgery or hospital stay versus medication or treatment in clinic/emergency department; minimal to moderate versus severe pain for 6 weeks; need for crutches/walker versus wheelchair for 6-12 weeks; being unable to work for 6-12 weeks; requiring 2-4 weeks in a facility; a perfect versus poor or worst-possible EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) score at 1 year; and death. Within each set, participants ranked their "most-preferred" to "least-preferred" outcomes. Responses were aggregated to calculate the relative importance, or marginal utility, of each outcome stratified by respondent type.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients and 65 surgeons participated. The most preferred outcome for patients and surgeons was a full recovery (back to normal) without any problems, followed by minimal to moderate pain for 6 weeks and a perfect EQ-5D score. The least preferred outcomes were death and the worst EQ-5D score, which had similar marginal utility, followed by a poor EQ-5D score and a problem that needs another surgery or stay at a hospital, which also had similar marginal utility. Surgeons, in comparison to patients, assigned a higher marginal utility to perfect EQ-5D scores at one year (3.55 vs. 2.03; p < 0.0001) and a 2-4 week stay in a facility (0.52 vs. -0.21; p = 0.001), and a lower marginal utility to severe pain for 6 weeks (-0.58 vs. -0.08; p = 0.04) and a poor EQ-5D score (-1.88 vs. -1.03; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

A full recovery (back to normal) without any problems was the most-preferred outcome for both patients and surgeons. Patient-centered care and research should focus on both patients' return to baseline and the avoidance of complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Circular frame versus reamed intramedullary tibial nail in the treatment of grade III open tibial diaphyseal fractures

BACKGROUND

Grade III open tibial diaphyseal fractures are challenging to treat and controversy exists on whether to treat them with an intramedullary nail (IMN) or a circular frame (CF). This study aims to compare outcomes for intramedullary nail and circular frame in the treatment of open tibial diaphyseal fractures.

METHODOLOGY

Retrospective study at a major trauma center of all patients admitted with a grade III open tibial diaphyseal fracture between January 2016 and January 2022. The primary outcome measures were major complications: non-union, malunion, refracture, DBI and amputation. Secondary outcome measures were time to union and reoperation rates.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were included in the study, 32 patients in CF group and 23 patients in IMN group. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographics of patients in both groups. Major complications were recorded in 13 limbs (54%) in IMN group and in 18 limbs (56%) in CF group which were not statistically significant (p = 0.797). Deep bone infection rates were noted in 4 (12.5%) in the CF group, compared to 1 (4%) in IMN group; however, the result was not statistically significant (p = 0.240). Amputation rates as a result of infected non-unions were seen in 1 limb (4%) in IMN group and 2 limbs (6%) in CF group (p = 0.99). Median time to union was significantly shorter in IMN group at 30 weeks compared to 30 weeks for CF group (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

IMN should be the treatment of choice in the treatment of grade III open tibial diaphyseal fracture, but CF should be considered for delayed treatment and in patients with bone loss.

A meta-analysis of the incidence of infections following open tibia fractures and the microorganisms that cause them in high-, middle- and low-income countries

Open tibia fractures are devastating, life changing injuries, with infection associated with substantial morbidity to the patient. Reducing infection is a research priority, but before interventional studies can be designed, the incidence of infection following this injury needs to be better defined. Our aim was to estimate the global incidence of infection following an open tibia fracture. A systematic review was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Global Index Medicus. We included randomised controlled trials with more than ten participants which reported infections after open diaphyseal or distal fractures (AO 42 or 43). Primary outcome was deep infection according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Secondary outcome included causative micro-organisms. A meta-analysis using a random effects model to assess incidence and between-treatment effects was performed. Thirteen studies including 1463 adults from seven middle-income countries, seven high-income countries and one low-income country were included. The incidence of infection was 12.12 person-years (95% CI 7.95-18.47). A subgroup analysis compared external fixation and intramedullary nailing showed no difference between infection rates. There were limited data on organisms, but Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly identified. There are limited to no data on antimicrobial resistance.

Plating as a reduction aid prior to intramedullary nailing of tibia fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to analyse the literature on plate-assisted reduction during intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures and to compare the rates of infection and nonunion.

METHODS

The databases Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 2022 for literature comparing plate-assisted reduction during intramedullary nailing of extra-articular tibia fractures to standard, closed means of reduction. Data were extracted and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis for the primary outcomes of nonunion and infection risk.

RESULTS

Five comparative studies were identified including 520 total patients, of which 151 underwent tibial nailing with the use of plate-assisted reduction with an average follow-up time of 17.9 months. Approximately two-thirds of patients retained the plate used to assist reduction during intramedullary nailing (102 of 151). Pooled analysis of the infection rates found no significant difference with plate-assisted intramedullary nailing (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.49-1.65, p = 0.72), and for nonunion rates, there was also no significant difference with plate-assisted intramedullary nailing (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.40-1.60, p = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Plate-assisted reduction during intramedullary nailing of tibia shaft fractures was not associated with an increased risk for nonunion or infection, and can be safely applied as an adjunct for reduction in challenging fracture patterns, without the need for later removal. However, evidence is quite limited and further investigation into the use of provisional plating as a technique is needed as its use in intramedullary nailing continues to expand.

Assessing the effectiveness of intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures in a low-income setting: a prospective study in Yemen

BACKGROUND

Tibial shaft fractures are common injuries that can be treated with various methods, including interlocked intramedullary nail (IMN). However, there is limited data on the clinical outcomes of IMN for tibial shaft fractures in Yemen.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of primary IMN for tibial shaft fractures in Yemen.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 134 patients who underwent primary IMN for tibial shaft fractures et al.-Thawra Modern General Hospital in Sana'a, Yemen, between June 2016 and June 2020. The patients were between 18 and 70 years old, and the fractures were classified according to the AO classification system. The fractures were treated with IMN using a standard technique. The patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The outcome measures included union time, complications, and functional scores.

RESULTS

The mean union time was 17 weeks. The overall complication rate was 18.7%. The most common complications were infection (8.2%), delayed union (6.7%), and nonunion (3.7%). The mean functional scores at the final follow-up were 91.4 for the Knee Society Score and 90.2 for the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Score.

CONCLUSION

Primary IMN is an effective and reliable method for treating tibial shaft fractures in Yemen, with acceptable union time, complication rate, and functional outcomes.

Diagnostic Performance of a telephone questionnaire for fracture-related infections (FRIs) in open tibia fracture patients in Tanzania

INTRODUCTION

Fracture-related infections (FRIs) are a major cause of trauma-associated morbidity worldwide. In 2018, an expert group supported by the AO Foundation, European Bone and Joint Infection Society developed a consensus definition of FRI. Still, there is limited knowledge on the applicability of this definition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the unique barriers that cause low follow-up rates for orthopaedic trauma patients in LMICs, this study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a telephone questionnaire in identifying patients with FRIs after open tibia fracture fixation in Tanzania.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients from a randomized controlled trial investigating the infection prevention benefit of locally applied gentamycin for open tibial fractures were included. Patients completed FRI based telephone questionnaires 7-10 days prior to scheduled follow-ups at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year. The questionnaire included two "confirmatory" criteria questions for FRI (i.e., open wound and purulent drainage) and three "suggestive" criteria questions (i.e., wound drainage, fever, and warmth). Contingency tests were performed to identify the sensitivity and specificity between answers and adjudicated FRI diagnoses at the corresponding in-person follow-up. Data was analysed using STATA version 15.0 and MedCalc's online diagnostic test calculator.

RESULTS

There were a total of 234 complete questionnaires and 85 unique patients included. The sensitivity and specificity of having any positive answer in the questionnaire was highest at 6 months (100 % and 92.5 %, respectively). For all time-points pooled, sensitivity was 71.4 % and specificity was 93.0 %. Drainage had the highest sensitivity (71.4 %) while fever had the highest specificity (99.6 %). For confirmatory criteria, sensitivity was 14.3 % and specificity was 96.0 %. Contrastingly, the sensitivity for suggestive criteria was higher (71.4 %), with a similar specificity (93.8 %).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that telephone questionnaires have adequate diagnostic performance when assessing FRIs. The presence of drainage identified the majority of patients with FRI, and specificities were high across confirmatory and suggestive criteria. Our study is one of the first to evaluate telephone questionnaires as a diagnostic tool for FRIs in patients with open tibia fractures in a LMIC hospital and validates the FRI consensus definition criteria.

External fixation versus intramedullary nailing for the management of open tibial fracture: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Tibial shaft fractures are the most common type of long-bone fractures. External fixation (EF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are widely used surgical techniques for the definitive fixation of open tibial shaft fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare EF to IMN for the definitive fixation of open tibial fractures.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for eligible studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EF to IMN for skeletally mature adults with open tibial fracture (Gustilo I, II, and III). We evaluated the following outcomes: superficial infection, pin-track infection, deep infection, malunion, nonunion, delayed union, and implant/hardware failure. The risk ratio (RR) was used to represent the desired outcomes. The statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs that enrolled 1090 participants were deemed eligible for the analysis. EF showed a significantly higher rate of superficial infection, pin track infection, and malunion compared to IMN (RR = 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34 to 3.95; RR = 13.52, 95% CI: 6.16 to 29.66; RR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.73, respectively). No substantial difference was found between EF and IMN in terms of deep infection, nonunion, delayed union, or implant/hardware failure (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.98; RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.33; RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.60, respectively).

DISCUSSION

The findings of our meta-analysis are consistent with the previous systematic reviews excepts for the implant/hardware failure which was found to be significant in favour of IMN by one of the previous reviews.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms that IMN is better than EF with respect to clinical outcomes and complication rate for the definitive fixation of open tibial fracture.

Functional outcomes and quality of life at 1-year follow-up after an open tibia fracture in Malawi: a multicentre, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Injuries are a major cause of disability globally and injury incidence is rapidly increasing, largely due to road traffic injuries in low-income and middle-income countries. Current estimates of the scale and consequences of disability from injury are largely based on modelling studies, with a scarcity of empirical evidence from severe injuries in low-income countries. We aimed to better understand the outcomes for individuals with open tibia fractures in Malawi.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective cohort study, adults (aged ≥18 years) with open tibia fractures were systematically recruited at six hospitals in Malawi (two tertiary hospitals and four district hospitals). Follow-up lasted at least 1 year, during which in-person follow-up reviews were done at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year post-injury. The primary outcome was function at 1 year post-injury, measured by the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) score. Secondary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; as determined via the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels [EQ-5D-3L] survey) and fracture-related infection at 1 year post-injury. Multilevel regression models investigated associations between SMFA score, EQ-5D-3L, baseline factors, and orthopaedic management.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 12, 2021, and March 14, 2022, 287 participants were enrolled (median age 34 years [IQR 25-44]; 84% male). The most common mode of injury was road traffic injuries (194 [68%] of 287). Overall, 268 (93%) participants had debridement; of the 63 participants who were debrided in district hospitals, 47 (75%) had the procedure under local or no anaesthesia. Following substantial declines by 6 weeks after injury, function and quality of life had not recovered by 1 year post-injury for participants with Gustilo grade I-II fractures (posterior mean SMFA at 1 year: 10·5, 95% highest density interval [HDI]: 9·5-11·6; QALYs: 0·73, 95% HDI: 0·66-0·80) nor Gustilo grade III fractures (posterior mean SMFA at 1 year: 14·9, 95% HDI: 13·4-16·6; QALYs: 0·67, 95% HDI: 0·59-0·75). For all fracture grades, intramedullary nailing substantially improved function and quality of life at 1 year post-injury. Delayed definitive fixation after 5 days had 5-times greater odds of infection compared with early management within 2 days (adjusted odds ratio: 5·1, 95% CI 1·8-16·1; p=0·02).

INTERPRETATION

Adults with open tibia fractures in Malawi have poor function and quality of life in the 1 year following injury. Centralised orthopaedic surgical management, including early definitive fixation and intramedullary nailing for more severe injuries, might improve outcomes.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust.

TRANSLATION

For the Chichewa translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing External Fixation to Intramedullary Nailing in the Treatment of Open Tibial Fractures

Background: The purpose of this study was to collect all available randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the treatment of open tibial fractures with an external fixator (EF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) for meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence-based data for clinical decision-making. Material and methods: The systematic review was undertaken in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Review). An electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed until 1 March 2023 to identify RCTs which compared either IMN or EF to fix the open tibial fracture. Outcome measures were: postoperative superficial and deep infection, time to union, delayed union, malunion, nonunion and hardware failure. In addition, pain and health-related quality of life were evaluated after 3 and 12 months of follow-up. Results: Sixteen publications comprising 1011 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results suggested that the IMN technique had a lower postoperative superficial infection and malunion rate (RR = 3.56, 95%CI = 2.56-4.95 and RR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.12-3.44, respectively), but higher hardware failure occurrence in contrast to EF (RR = 0.30; 95%CI = 0.13-0.69). No significant differences were found in the union time, delayed union or nonunion rate, and postoperative deep infection rate between the treatments. Lower levels of pain were found in the EF group (RR = 0.05, 95%CI = 0.02-0.17, p < 0.001). A difference in quality of life favoring IMN after 3 months was found (RR = -0.04, 95%CI = -0.05-0.03, p < 0.001), however, no statistical difference was found after 12 months (RR = 0.03, 95%CI = -0.05-0.11, p = 0.44). Conclusions: Meta-analysis presented reduced incidence rates of superficial infection, malunion, and health-related quality of life 3 months after treatment in IMN. However, EF led to a significant reduction in pain and incidence rate of hardware failure. Postoperative deep infection, delayed union, nonunion and health-related quality of life 12 months following therapy were similar between groups. More high-quality RCTs should be conducted to provide reliable evidence-based data for clinical decision-making.