Management of diaphyseal tibial fractures by plate fixation with absolute or relative stability: a retrospective study of 45 patients

Effectiveness of orthopedic implant removal surgery in patients with no implant-related symptoms after fracture union of isolated lower extremity shaft fractures: patient-centered evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Routine orthopedic implant removal surgery (OIRS) in patients with no implant-related symptoms after union is controversial. Various factors, such as various fracture sites, fracture types, and accompanying fractures at other sites, act as error variables in the evaluation of routine OIRS. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the benefits of orthopedic implant removal surgery (OIRS) in patients with no implant-related symptoms such as infection and soft tissue irritation after union of isolated lower extremity shaft fractures from a patient-centered evaluation MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients who achieved fracture union after internal fixation of femoral shaft or tibial shaft fractures (March 2004 to December 2018) and who showed no implant-related symptoms were evaluated retrospectively. Minimum post-OIRS follow-up period was 1 year. Thirty-eight patients were treated with intramedullary nail and 13 were treated with plate and screws for femoral shaft fracture. Twenty patients were treated with intramedullary nail and 13 were treated with plate and screws for tibial shaft fracture. All patients subsequently underwent OIRS. Quality of life (QoL) and lower extremity pain using visual analogue scale (VAS) were evaluated 1 day before OIRS. Patient satisfaction with the OIRS, VAS, and QoL were assessed at least 1 year after OIRS using the SF-36 questionnaire.

RESULTS

The physical component score, mental component score, and scores of all eight domains showed significant improvement after OIRS (p < 0.01). Patients with femoral shaft fractures tended to have lower pre- and post-OIRS SF-36 scores than those with tibial shaft fracture. Among patients with femoral shaft fracture, SF-36 scores were comparable in the nail and plate groups. Among patients with tibial shaft fracture, nail group showed relatively better QoL than the plate group, before and after OIRS in spite of several complications such as formation of scar tissue, nerve damage, and refracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with no implant-related symptoms showed significant improvement in QoL and satisfaction after OIRS. This suggests that OIRS is beneficial from the patients' evaluation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II.

Finite element analysis modeling of plates versus intramedullary nails in closed comminuted midshaft tibial fractures

Background: Tibial shaft fractures are usually treated by interlocking nails or plates. The ideal implant choice depends on many variables. Aim: To assess the mechanical behavior of interlocking nails and plates in the treatment of closed comminuted midshaft fractures of the tibia using finite element analysis. Material and methods: This is a prospective study of 50 patients with a mean age of 28.4 years with closed comminuted fractures of the midshaft of the tibia. Data evaluation was done by Finite element analysis (FEA). Fixation was revised in two cases. Results: After load application, there were significant differences in both bending (P = 0.041) and strain percent (P = 0.017), reflecting that interlocking nails were superior to plates. There were also significant differences between titanium and stainless-steel materials in bending (p = 0.041) and strain percent (p = 0.017) after applying load, indicating that titanium was superior to stainless steel. Conclusion: Interlocking nails are superior to plates in treating midshaft tibial fractures. The use of blocking screws may be needed in interlocking nails depending on the pattern and extension of the fracture.

Mechanical performance and implications on bone healing of different screw configurations for plate fixation of diaphyseal tibia fractures: a computational study

Diaphyseal tibia fractures may require plate fixation for proper healing to occur. Currently, there is no consensus on the number of screws required for proper fixation or the optimal placement of the screws within the plate. Mechanical stability of the construct is a leading criterion for choosing plate and screws configuration. However, number and location of screws have implications on the mechanical environment at the fracture site and, consequently, on bone healing response: The interfragmentary motion attained with a specific plate and screw construct may elicit mechano-transduction signals influencing cell-type differentiation, which in turn affects how well the fracture heals. This study investigated how different screw configurations affect mechanical performance of a tibia plate fixation construct. Three configurations of an eight-hole plate were considered with the fracture in the center of the plate: eight screws-screws at first, fourth, fifth and eighth hole and screws at first, third, sixth and eighth hole. Constructs' stiffness was compared through biomechanical tests on bone surrogates. A finite element model of tibia diaphyseal fracture was used to conduct a stress analysis on the implanted hardware. Finally, the potential for bone regeneration of each screw configuration was assessed via the computational model through the evaluation of the magnitude of mechano-transduction signals at the bone callus. The results of this study indicate that having screws at fourth and fifth holes represents a preferable configuration since it provides mechanical properties similar to those attained by the stiffest construct (eight screws), and elicits an ideal bone regenerative response.