Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep-Dec;16(3):161-167.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1536.

Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail

Ibrahim Natalwala  1 , Cher Bing Chuo  1 , Isla Shariatmadari  2 , Gavin Barlow  3 , Elizabeth Moulder  4 , Joanna Bates  5 , Hemant Sharma  4
Affiliations

Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail

Ibrahim Natalwala et al. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2021 Sep-Dec.

Abstract

Introduction: High-energy grade III open fractures of tibia are associated with significant complications and generate debate over the ideal fixation method. This study compares the clinical outcomes for circular frame fixation (CFF) vs intramedullary nail fixation (IMF) in grade III open tibial fractures.

Materials and methods: Single-centre retrospective study of patients admitted from January 2008 to December 2016. All patients with grade III open diaphyseal tibial fractures (AO 42 A, B, C), treated with either CFF or IMF, were included. The primary outcome was deep bone infection (DBI). Secondary outcomes were delayed or non-union, secondary intervention, and amputation.

Results: A total of 48 limbs in 47 patients had CFF, and 25 limbs in 23 patients had IMF. Median time to definitive fixation was significantly longer for CFF at 9 days (IQR 3-13) compared to IMF at 1 day (IQR 0-3.5) (p <0.001). The DBI rate was significantly lower (2 vs 16%) in the CFF group (p = 0.04). There were 14 limbs (29%) with delayed or non-union in the CFF group vs 5 limbs (20%) in the IMF group. In the CFF group, significantly more limbs required bone grafting for delayed or non-union (p = 0.03). However, there was a greater proportion of limbs in the CFF group with segmental fractures or bone loss (46 vs 4%) and these high-energy fracture patterns were associated with secondary bone grafting (p = 0.005), and with delayed or non-union (p = 0.03). A subgroup analysis of patients without segmental fractures or bone loss treated with either CFF or IMF showed no significant difference in secondary bone grafting (p >0.99) and delayed or non-union rates (p = 0.72). Overall, one patient in each group went on to have an amputation.

Conclusion: Our study found that CFF had a lower rate of DBI compared to IMF. Injuries with high-energy fracture patterns (segmental fractures or bone loss) were more likely to have delayed or non-union and require secondary bone grafting. These factors should be considered when selecting the appropriate method of definitive fixation.

How to cite this article: Natalwala I, Chuo CB, Shariatmadari I, et al. Outcomes and Incidence of Deep Bone Infection in Grade III Diaphyseal Open Tibial Fractures: Circular Fixator vs Intramedullary Nail. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(3):161-167.

Keywords: Circular frame; Intramedullary nail; Open fracture; Tibia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Diagrams showing the distribution of grade III tibial fractures in CFF and IMF groups
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Diagrams showing the different types of soft tissue reconstruction used in the CFF and IMF groups
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Eccles S, Handley B, Khan U, et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020. Standards for the management of open fractures.
    1. Court-Brown CM, Bugler KE, Clement ND, et al. The epidemiology of open fractures in adults. A 15-year review. Injury. 2012;43(6):891–897. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.12.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morgenstern M, Vallejo A, McNally MA, et al. The effect of local antibiotic prophylaxis when treating open limb fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res. 2018;7(7):447–456. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.77.BJR-2018-0043.R1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tissingh EK, Memarzadeh A, Queally J, et al. Open lower limb fractures in major trauma centers – a loss leader? Injury. 2017;48(2):353–356. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.12.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Olesen UK, Pedersen NJ, Eckardt H, et al. The cost of infection in severe open tibial fractures treated with a free flap. Int Orthop. 2017;41(5):1049–1055. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3337-6. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources