Loading…

A retrospective investigation on clinical and radiographic outcomes of distal tibial fractures after intramedullary nailing using the lateral parapatellar extra-articular approach

Introduction According to reports, the modified extra-articular parapatellar approach allows the performance of tibial nailing in the semi-extended position without the concern of joint violation. However, there remains no special study that has provided a detailed assessment of the benefits and ris...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery 2024-05, Vol.144 (5), p.2101-2108
Main Authors: Nie, Wei, Wang, Zhaojun, Xu, Shizhuang, Guo, Sutong, Yue, Yang, Sun, Kefu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction According to reports, the modified extra-articular parapatellar approach allows the performance of tibial nailing in the semi-extended position without the concern of joint violation. However, there remains no special study that has provided a detailed assessment of the benefits and risks of this approach for treating distal tibial fractures (DTFs). The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with DTFs after intramedullary nailing using a lateral parapatellar extra-articular (LPE) approach in comparison to using the suprapatellar (SP) and transpatellar (TP) approaches. Methods Data were collected from 99 patients with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Comparisons were conducted between the groups regarding the number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, complications, knee pain, knee range of motion (ROM), the Lysholm Knee Scale (LKS), the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and radiological findings. Results The demographic characteristics were comparable between the groups. Fewer intraoperative fluoroscopies were performed in the LPE (27.47 ± 4.98) and SP (26.03 ± 5.12) groups than in the TP group (30.20 ± 7.42; P
ISSN:1434-3916
0936-8051
1434-3916
DOI:10.1007/s00402-024-05344-z