Fibula fractures management

Canton, Gianluca; Sborgia, Andrea; Maritan, Guido; Fattori, Roberto; Roman, Federico; Tomic, Marko; Morandi, Massimo; Murena, Luigi

doi:10.5312/wjo.v12.i5.254

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 13 Periprosthetic distal femur fracture morbidity and mortality remain ill-defined with few large-scale studies investigating the morbidity and mortality. 14 Furthermore, there are few previous studies comparing the morbidity and mortality to a more well-known entity such as native distal femur fractures. 15 Moreover, we hypothesized that periprosthetic femur fractures are more severe injuries than native counterparts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparable Outcomes Between Native and Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the rising prevalence of arthroplasty and aging population, limited data exist regarding differences in periprosthetic fracture clinical outcomes compared with native counterparts. This study compares differences in hospital treatment, morbidity, and mortality associated with periprosthetic distal femur fractures at an urban level 1 trauma center. We retrospectively reviewed all adult AO/OTA type 33 fractures (526) that presented to our institution between 2009 and 2018. In total, 54 native and 54 periprosthetic fractures were matched by age and gender. We recorded demographics, operative measures, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and mortality. We used McNemar's and paired t-tests for analysis where appropriate (p < 0.05) (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY; IBM Corp.). The average age at injury was 74 years ± 12 (native) compared with 73 years ± 12 (periprosthetic). After 1:1 matching, the groups had similar body mass index (31.01 vs. 32.98, p = 0.966 for native and periprosthetic, respectively) and mechanisms of injury with 38 native and 44 periprosthetic (p = 0.198) fractures from low-energy falls. Both groups had 51/54 fractures managed with open reduction internal fixation with a locking plate. The remaining were managed via amputation or intramedullary nail fixation. Mean operative time (144 minutes (±64) vs. 132 minutes (±62), p = 0.96) and estimated blood loss (319 mL (±362) vs. 289 mL (±231), p = 0.44) were comparable between the native and periprosthetic groups, respectively. LOS: 9 days ± 7 (native) versus 7 days ± 5 (periprosthetic, p = 0.31); discharge disposition (to skilled nursing facility/rehab): n = 47 (native) versus n = 43 (periprosthetic, p = 0.61); and mortality: n = 6 (native) versus n = 8 (periprosthetic, p = 0.55). No significant differences were observed. We found no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality in periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated over 10 years at a level 1 trauma center. Native and periprosthetic AO/OTA type 33 distal femur fractures are serious injuries with similar outcomes at a level 1 trauma center.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparable Outcomes Between Native and Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Plate fixation allows for superior control over the alignment of bone fragments, facilitating precise anatomical reduction and stable fixation. This feature is especially beneficial for complex fractures that necessitate structural alignment [ 12 ]. Furthermore, the presence of a metal plate provides immediate stability to the fractured bone, enabling early weight-bearing and promoting accelerated healing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Intramedullary Nail versus Plate Fixation for Fibula Fracture in Supination External Rotation Type IV Ankle Injury

Chen,

Li,

et al. 2023

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Lateral malleolus fractures, typically from trauma, sports, or accidents, are common, with supination external rotation (SER) injuries being most prevalent. SER injuries involve complex joint mechanics and often necessitate surgical intervention for instability. This study compares intramedullary nail and plate fixation for fibula fractures in SER type IV ankle injuries, considering their biomechanical properties and influence on fracture healing. Material/Methods A prospective, randomized study was conducted between January 2021 and December 2021. A total of 81 patients with SER injuries were included in the study. Surgical procedures were performed using either intramedullary nails or plates. The following parameters were recorded and analyzed: postoperative complications, operation times, bone healing times, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, and ankle range of motion. Results Out of the 81 cases, 42 were treated with intramedullary nails, while 39 received plate fixation. Statistical analysis revealed a significantly lower rate of postoperative complications in the intramedullary nail group than in the the plate fixation group (9.52% vs 30.77%, P <0.0164). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of operation time, bone healing time, AOFAS scores, VAS scores, and functional evaluations ( P >0.05). Conclusions Plate fixation and intramedullary nail fixation are effective techniques for treating fibula fractures in SER type IV injuries. However, intramedullary nail fixation demonstrates a lower rate of complications. Therefore, intramedullary nails may be preferable to plate fixation for the management of fibula fractures in SER type IV ankle injuries.

show abstract

“…9 The lateral view is useful in demonstrating the AP displacement in the fibula fracture. 10 On the basis of Anteroposterior and lateral view the fibula fractures were treated based on their location and type. Plate fixation with screws was regarded as the gold standard for the treatment of fibula fractures at the hospital where the study was conducted.…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of fibula bone fracture treated with fibula plate and screws: a retrospective study

Kumar¹,

Mishra²,

Chawale³

et al. 2022

Int J Res Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study was to examine the performance of the plate system with screws while treating Fibula bone fracture.Methods: This was a retrospective study in which 36 patients (27M and 9F) were treated for fibula bone fracture in M.O.H. Jeetoo hospital between September 2020 to December 2021 with a mean follow up of 1 year (1month, 3 months, 6months and 12months). Radiological results at every follow up showed bone union and related complications. Physical fitness of the patients was examined by the American society of anesthesiologists grade and the pain intensity was analyzed by VAS scoring table.Results: The gradually dropping in VAS score indicates positive results to pain management. Consistently, all patients received physiotherapy under physiotherapists. No patient complained of problems or hardware-related issues at the time of the last follow-up, and every patient had proper bone union. At a six-month follow-up, radiological results also indicated proper union.Conclusions: Complications risks are minimal with plate fixation for fibula bone fractures. Better outcomes and accuracy depend upon the surgical skills that can lead to reduced complications.

show abstract

Fibula fractures management

Cited by 15 publications

References 110 publications

Comparable Outcomes Between Native and Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur

Comparable Outcomes Between Native and Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur

Comparative Analysis of Intramedullary Nail versus Plate Fixation for Fibula Fracture in Supination External Rotation Type IV Ankle Injury

Clinical outcomes of fibula bone fracture treated with fibula plate and screws: a retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About