Metallic screw fixation versus absorbable screw fixation after open reduction in treatment of distal tibial epiphyseal fractures in adolescents
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20221112-00565
- VernacularTitle:切开复位金属螺钉固定与可吸收螺钉固定治疗青少年胫骨远端骨骺骨折的治疗结果比较
- Author:
Minglei LI
1
;
Weizheng ZHOU
;
Lianyong LI
Author Information
1. 中国医科大学附属盛京医院小儿骨科，沈阳 110004
- Keywords:
Adolescents;
Tibial fracture;
Epiphysis;
Fracture fixation;
Absorbable implants
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2023;25(2):116-123
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy between metallic screw fixation and absorbable screw fixation after open reduction in the treatment of adolescent distal tibial epiphyseal fractures.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the data of 82 patients with closed distal tibial epiphyseal fracture who had been admitted to Department of Pediatric Orthopedics, Shengjing Hospital Affiliated to China Medical University from January 2013 to December 2020. There were 61 males and 21 females (aged from 8 to 15 years), and 39 left sides and 43 right sides. The Salter-Harris classification: type Ⅱ in 25 cases, type Ⅲ in 8 cases, and type Ⅳ in 49 cases. They were divided into 2 groups according to different internal fixation methods. Group A (42 cases) was subjected to open reduction and metallic screw fixation and group B (40 cases) to open reduction and absorbable screw fixation. Preoperative data, operation time, total treatment cost and complications during follow-up were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. In both groups at the last follow-up, anteroposterior and lateral ankle radiographs were taken for radiographic evaluation of the injury to the distal tibial epiphysis and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score was used to assess the ankle function.Results:The 2 groups were comparable because there were no significant differences in all their preoperative demographic data ( P>0.05). Group A was followed up for 18.0(16.0, 21.3) months while group B for 16.0(13.0, 20.0) months. The treatment cost for group A [27, 000 (25, 000, 33, 000) Yuan] was significantly higher than that for group B [23, 000 (19, 000, 27, 000) Yuan] ( P<0.05). The operation time was (112.4±34.3) min for group A and (101.0±41.1) min for group B, showing no significant difference ( P>0.05). The lateral distal tibial angle was 89.5 (88.0, 91.0)° on the affected side and 89.7°±1.8° on the unaffected sides in group A; it was 90.0 (88.3, 90.8)° on the affected side and 89.5°±1.8° on the unaffected side in group B. The anterior distal tibial angle was 81.9°±1.8° on the affected side and 81.8°±1.5° on the unaffected side in group A; it was 82.0 (81.0, 83.0)° on the affected side and 82.1°±2.2° on the unaffected side in group B. There was no significant difference in the above comparisons at the last follow-up in radiographic evaluation of the distal ankle joint between the affected and the unaffected sides in either group or between groups( P>0.05). There was a significant difference between the 2 groups in the rate of superficial skin infection [11.9% (5/42) versus 0% (0/40)] ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the incidence of premature physeal closure between the 2 groups [11.9% (5/42) versus 5.0% (2/40)] ( P>0.05). The last follow-up revealed no significant difference in the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score between group A [(90.6±4.9) points] and group B [(92.1±4.6) points] ( P>0.05). Conclusions:In the treatment of adolescent distal tibial epiphyseal fractures, compared with metallic screw fixation, absorbable screw fixation may lead to comparable efficacy in fixation, functional recovery and imaging evaluation, but no increased risk of premature physeal closure. Moreover, it spares the need for secondary surgical removal, and reduces operation time and treatment cost.
