These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparison study on two operations for treatment of extra-articular distal tibial fracture].
    Author: Qi H, Li W, Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Liu Z, Jia J.
    Journal: Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2013 Nov; 27(11):1286-90. PubMed ID: 24501883.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for treatment of extra-articular distal tibial fracture. METHODS: Between March 2009 and March 2012, 57 patients with extra-articular distal tibial fractures were treated, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. Of 57 cases, 31 were treated with MIPO (MIPO group), and 26 with ORIF (ORIF group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, type of fractures, complication, and time from injury to operation between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, and complications were compared between 2 groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Wound infection occurred in 5 cases [2 in MIPO group (6.5%) and 3 in ORIF group (11.5%)] showing no significant difference (Chi(2)=0.651, P=0.499). The other wound obtained healing by first intention. All cases were followed up 13-24 months (mean, 15 months). No significant difference was found in the average healing time between 2 groups and between patients with types A and B by AO classification (P > 0.05); in patients with type C, the healing time in MIPO group was significantly shorter than that in ORIF group (t= -2.277, P=0.033). Delayed union was observed in 3 cases of MIPO group (9.7%) and in 4 cases of ORIF group (15.4%), showing no significant difference (Chi(2)=0.428, P=0.691). Mal-union occurred in 4 cases of MIPO group (12.9%) and in 1 case of ORIF group (3.8%), showing no significant difference (Chi(2)=1.449, P=0.362). No significant difference was found in Mazur score between 2 groups (t=0.480, P=0.633). The excellent and good rate was 93.5% in MIPO group (excellent in 24 cases, good in 5 cases, fair in 1 case, and poor in 1 case) and was 92.3% in ORIF group (excellent in 18 cases, good in 6 cases, and poor in 2 cases), and the difference was not significant (Z= -0.687, P=0.492). CONCLUSION: Both MIPO and ORIF have good results in treating extra-articular distal tibial fractures. MIPO is superior to ORIF for treating complex and communited fractures.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]