Plate vs. Nail: Is there a more effective implant for extreme tibia fractures?

The purpose of this study is to determine differences in outcomes between "extreme" tibial metaphyseal fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) or plate osteosynthesis.

545 prospectively collected patients were reviewed by two board-certified orthopedic trauma surgeons to identify extreme tibial shaft fractures (defined as most proximal or distal segments that involved or would have involved the area encompassed by the nail locking bolts). Fifty-one patients were identified. Twenty-five patients treated with an intramedullary nail were compared to 24 patients treated with plate and screws for similar patterns. Data collected included patient demographics, surgical details, and outcomes. Cohorts were compared using fisher's exact test, independent T tests, and multivariable linear regression.

The mean age of all patients was 46.73 years. There were no differences in ASA, CCI, age, male/female composition, or BMI between cohorts. There were no differences in low vs. high-energy mechanism of injury between cohorts, however the IMN cohort had a greater proportion of open fractures (p = 0.018). When controlling for covariates, patients who underwent IMN were allowed earlier weight bearing on the operative extremity. There were no differences in ankle or knee range of motion at latest follow up. There was a greater incidence of total complications among IMN (p = 0.033). Single variable analysis revealed an association between IMN and nonunion (p = 0.050). IMN trended towards greater need for reoperation (p = 0.086).

Intramedullary nailing of "extreme tibia fractures" was associated with higher rates of total complications compared to plate osteosynthesis and trended with greater need for reoperation. However, it should be noted that there was a higher incidence of open fractures in this cohort. There were no differences in the rate of malalignment, range of motion, or time to healing between cohorts.