AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques repair in distal tibial fractures: a comparative study
Hao-Jun Wu1, Yan-Xia He2, Chen Hang3
1The Orthopaedic Center, the Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical University, No. 57 South Renmin Avenue, Xiashan District, Zhanjiang, 524001, China. wuhaojun2000@126.com.
Background:
Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) via percutaneous plate placement on the distal medial tibia can be performed with minimizes soft tissue injury and produces good clinical results. However, the difficulty with MIPO lies in how to achieve satisfactory fracture reduction and maintain that reduction via indirect reduction techniques to facilitate internal fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques combined with MIPO in the treatment of distal tibia fractures.
Methods:
Between January 2013 and December 2019, 58 patients with a distal tibia fracture were treated using MIPO. Patients were divided into two groups according to the indirect reduction method that was used: 26 patients were reduced with manual traction(group M), and 32 were reduced with an AO distractor (group A).Time until union and clinical outcomes including AOFAS ankle-rating score and ankle range of ankle motion at final follow-up were compared. Mean operative time, incision length, blood loss and postoperative complications were recorded via chart review. Radiographic results at final follow-up were assessed for tibial angulation and shortening by a blinded reader.
Results:
Mean operative time, incision length, and blood loss in group A were significantly lower than in group M(p = 0.019, 0.018 and 0.016, respectively).Radiographic evidence of bony union was seen in all cases, and mean time until union was equivalent between the two groups (p = 0.384).Skin irritation was noted in one case(3.1%) in group A and three cases(11.5%)in group M, but the symptoms were not severe and the plate was removed after bony union. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups(p = 0.461). Mean AOFAS score and range of ankle motion were equivalent between the two groups, as were varus deformity, valgus deformity, anterior angulation and posterior angulation. No patients had gross angular deformity. Mean tibial shortening was not significantly different between the two groups, and no patients had tibial shortening > 10 mm.
Conclusion:
Both an AO distractor and manual traction reduction techniques prior to MIPO in the treatment of distal tibial fractures permit a high fracture healing rate and satisfying functional outcomes with few wound healing complications. An AO distractor is an excellent indirect reduction method that may improve operative efficiency and reduce the risk of soft tissue injury.
