title: Management of distal third tibial fractures: comparison of combined internal and external fixation with minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this study was to compare combined internal and external fixation (CIEF) with minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) in the treatment of distal third tibial fractures, and explore the benefits and defects of these two techniques.
  
  
  METHODS
  From April 2004 to February 2012, a total of 44 patients were randomised to operative stabilisation either by two closed titanium elastic nails combined with an external fixator (CIEF, 22) or by minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis with a locking plate (MIPPO, 22). Pre-operative variables included the patients' age, sex, fracture side, cause of injury, Tscherne classification of soft tissue injury, fracture pattern, presence of open fracture and interval from injury to surgery. Peri-operative variables were the operating time and the radiation time. Postoperative variables were wound problems, bone union time, time of recovery to work, the functional American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle surgery (AOFAS) score and removal of hardware.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was no significant difference in the time to union, the time of recovery to work, function, alignment and total AOFAS scores between the two groups (P = 0.704, 0.835, 0.551, 0.716 and 0.212, respectively). The mean operating time and radiation time were longer in the MIPPO group than in the CIEF group (85.3 ± 12.5 vs. 73.2 ± 12.0 minutes, P = 0.002, and 3.1 ± 1.5 vs. 2.1 ± 1.2 minutes, P = 0.019, respectively). Wound complications were more common in the MIPPO group (18.2% vs. 0% with CIEF, P = 0.105). There was a trend for patients with MIPPO to have a higher incidence of ankle pain (31.8% vs. 9.1% with CIEF, P = 0.135). Painful implants were removed in 31.8% of patients with MIPPO versus 9.1% with CIEF (P = 0.135). Of the 165 self-tapping locking screws of the locking plates seven (four patients) were removed with some difficulty because of stripping of the hexagonal recess.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results indicated that both CIEF and MIPPO were all efficient methods for treating distal third tibial fractures. However, CIEF had the advantages of a shorter operating and radiation time, less wound complication and ankle pain, less secondary operations for implant removal and easier removal of the implants.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109 Xueyuanxi Road, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
authors.forename: Liao-Jun
authors.initials: LJ
authors.lastname: Sun
authors.forename: Zhi-Peng
authors.initials: ZP
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.forename: Xiao-Shan
authors.initials: XS
authors.lastname: Guo
authors.forename: Hua
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Chen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001858:Bone Nails; D001860:Bone Plates; D020878:Device Removal; D016267:External Fixators; D005260:Female; D005592:Fracture Fixation / Q000379:methods*; D005593:Fracture Fixation, Internal / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; D061646:Operative Time; D011859:Radiography; D013978:Tibial Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2004 Jun;28(3):159-62
references.pmid: 14968266
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2012 Jul;36(7):1457-62
references.pmid: 22310971
references.citation: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005 Feb;125(1):21-6
references.pmid: 15611864
references.citation: Injury. 2006 Sep;37(9):877-87
references.pmid: 16895727
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Apr;468(4):975-82
references.pmid: 19641974
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 May;77(3):412-6
references.pmid: 7744926
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2008 Oct;32(5):697-703
references.pmid: 17572892
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2013 Jan;37(1):105-11
references.pmid: 23161109
references.citation: J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Jul;21(6):355-61
references.pmid: 17620992
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Jul;73(4):654-9
references.pmid: 2071654
references.citation: Injury. 2010 Mar;41(3):253-8
references.pmid: 20176163
references.citation: J Surg Res. 2010 Mar;159(1):503-8
references.pmid: 19181343
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Mar;467(3):831-7
references.pmid: 18719970
references.citation: Injury. 1997;28 Suppl 1:A7-12
references.pmid: 10897282
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2010 Apr;34(4):583-8
references.pmid: 19554328
references.citation: J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004 May-Jun;43(3):199-203
references.pmid: 15181439
references.citation: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Jan;129(1):91-5
references.pmid: 18931851
references.citation: Injury. 2011 Oct;42(10):975-84
references.pmid: 22073415
references.citation: Acta Orthop Belg. 2004 Apr;70(2):148-54
references.pmid: 15165017
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2007 Oct;31(5):709-14
references.pmid: 17160683
references.citation: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Nov;130(11):1377-82
references.pmid: 20361199
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 May;79(3):487-9
references.pmid: 9180334
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Mar;(408):286-91
references.pmid: 12616072
references.citation: J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Aug;13(6):401-6
references.pmid: 10459598
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2014 Jun;38(6):1261-7
references.pmid: 24549966
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Aug;(293):28-36
references.pmid: 8339493
references.citation: J Trauma. 1993 Feb;34(2):185-92
references.pmid: 8459454
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Jun;(375):69-77
references.pmid: 10853155
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Apr;80(4):547-54
references.pmid: 9563384
references.citation: Foot Ankle Int. 1994 Jul;15(7):349-53
references.pmid: 7951968