Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2025
Treatment with Locking Intramedullary Nailing for Intertrochanteric Fracture of the Femur Utilizing a New Awl with a Distal Positioner
Published on: June 6, 2025
Plating Versus Intramedullary Nailing of OTA/AO 43C1 and C2 Intra-articular Distal Tibia Fractures: A Propensity
Yohan Jang1,2, Nathaniel Wilson3, Jenna Jones2
1Division of Orthopedic, Trauma, Indiana University, Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, IN.
Objective:
To compare rates of reduction loss, nonunion, and infection in intra-articular distal tibia fractures (IADTF) treated with limited open reduction internal fixation and intramedullary nailing (IMN) as compared to open reduction internal fixation with plate and screws (plate fixation [PF]).
Design:
Retrospective review.
Setting:
Level-I academic trauma center.
Patient Selection Criteria:
Patients age ≥ 18 with OTA/AO 43C1 and C2 IADTF treated with IMN or PF between 2013-2021.
Outcome Measures And Comparisons:
Loss of reduction, surgical site infection (SSI), nonunion, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared for IMN versus PF treatments.
Results:
One hundred ten patients met the inclusion criteria (IMN 33 and PF 77). There was no loss of reduction found. Seventeen nonunions (15% overall; IMN 4/33 and PF 13/77) and 13 SSIs (12% overall; IMN 2/33 and PF11/77) were identified. Despite several risk factors being identified for nonunion and SSI in bivariate analysis, only open fracture remained significant as a risk factor for both nonunion (odds ratio 0.09 for closed fracture, 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.56, P = 0.009) and SSI (odds ratio 0.07 for closed fracture, 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.26, P = 0.012) in the multivariate model. Propensity scoring based on presurgical variables was significantly different between patients who received IMN versus PF ( P = 0.03); however, logistic regression incorporating the propensity score revealed no significant association with nonunion and SSI. Adjusting for the propensity score, there remained no association comparing IMN versus PF with nonunion and SSI ( P = 0.54 and P = 0.17, respectively). There was also no difference in PROs between IMN and PF (physical function: P = 0.25 and pain interference: P = 0.21).
Conclusions:
Overall nonunion and SSI prevalence was 15% and 12%, respectively, in operatively treated OTA/AO 43C1 and C2 IADTF. An open fracture was a significant risk factor for nonunion and SSI. Metaphyseal fixation through IMN or PF did not affect loss of reduction, nonunion, SSI, or PROs.
Level Of Evidence:
Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
More Related Videos
07:41An Intramedullary Locking Nail for Standardized Fixation of Femur Osteotomies to Analyze Normal and Defective Bone Healing in Mice
Published on: November 13, 2016
06:41A Minimally Invasive Model to Analyze Endochondral Fracture Healing in Mice Under Standardized Biomechanical Conditions
Published on: March 22, 2018
