ACE Report Cover
Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis vs. ORIF for distal tibia fractures
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
TRAUMA
Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis vs. ORIF for distal tibia fractures .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(16):48 Injury. 2013 Aug;44(8):1102-6.
Autores colaboradores

J Zou W Zhang CQ Zhang

94 patients with displaced extra-articular distal tibia fractures were randomized to receive open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or treatment using a minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO). This one year study aimed to evaluate the clinical success of the minimally invasive operation in comparison to ORIF, assessing differences in complications and operative outcomes. The results demonstrated similar outcomes for ORIF and the MIPPO procedure, unless a Type C fracture was involved, in which case, the healing time was reduced with the MIPPO approach.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Not Reported
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Riesgo de sesgo

5,5/10

Criterios de información

16/20

Índice de fragilidad

N/A

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?

Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?

Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?

Sí = 1

Incierto = 0,5

No relevante = 0

No = 0

La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.

1/4

Randomization

3/4

Outcome Measurements

4/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

4/4

Therapy Description

4/4

Statistics

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.

¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?

Patients with tibial fractures can be treated operatively with a minimally invasive approach or with open reduction and internal fixation. Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) can potentially reduce periosteal damage and improve direct bone healing while reducing recovery time. MIPPO is widely accepted and regularly used to treat fractures of the extremities; however, it is not confirmed as to whether the minimally invasive approach is superior to the absolute stability of open surgery. Therefore, this study was required to compare the clinical outcomes of MIPPO and ORIF for displaced extra-articular distal tibia fractures.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

Will a minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis approach provide greater success in treating a displaced extra-articular distal tibia fracture compared to open reduction and internal fixation?

Características del estudio +
Population:
94 patients presented with displaced extra-articular distal tibia fractures between the ages of 18 and 60 years.
Intervention:
Closed (MIPPO) Group: Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis was performed on these patients. Two 3-4 cm incisions were made in the medial tibia followed by a subcutaneous incision between the two points. This allowed the plate to be inserted percutaneously parallel to the tibia axial line. Mean Age = 46.5 (Range 39-54) years, 75% male, (n=52). (for further detail consult the original publication)
Comparison:
Open (ORIF) Group: The incision of these patients was initiated lateral of the anterior tibia crest and stretches to the medial malleolus followed by separation of the soft tissue allowing direct access to the fracture. Plates were placed on the medial surface of the tibia. Mean age = 46 (Range 36-54) years, 64.3% male, (n=42). (for further detail consult the original publication)
Outcomes:
Primary Outcomes: Frequency of delayed union, non-union and malunion. Secondary Outcomes: Duration of operation, recovery speed and operational bleeding.
Methods:
RCT; Single-Center; single-blind
Time:
Postoperative assessments made at 2 weeks and 4 weeks followed by monthly examinations up to 12 months.
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
  • Complications occurred at a similar rate with 9 occurring in the open group and 10 in the closed group. However, the distribution of these complications was significantly different between groups (p=0.028)
  • In the closed group, there was 1 non-union, 4 delayed unions, 5 malunions and 0 infections. In the open group there were 4 non-unions, 3 delayed unions, 0 malunions and 2 infections.
  • There was no difference in the operational bleeding between the two approaches (p=0.150).
  • Operative time was significantly longer in the open group (65.0 min) than in the closed group (56 min) (p<0.001)
  • Subgroup analysis assessing AO fracture types indicated similar recovery times for fracture types A and B; however, type C fractures treated with the minimally invasive approach had a significantly shorter recovery time (p=0.032).
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) for the treatment of displaced extra-articular distal tibia fractures produced similar results compared to open reduction and internal fixation. A similar rate of complication was shown; however, there was a difference in the distribution of these complications between the two groups. Analysis of fracture healing based on fracture classification indicated that in Type C fractures; MIPPO resulted in a shorter healing times.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis produced similar results when compared to ORIF for patients with extra-articular distal tibia fractures. However, patients with type C fractures may benefit from a shorter healing time when operated on using the minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis approach. Further research needs to be undertaken to assess if healing time remains improved in patients with type C fractures when assessed in a larger sample of patients. Additionally, the functional outcomes of minimally invasive techniques and ORIF need to be compared and further assessments of complication rates are required.

DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD

El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
Ha alcanzado su límite de vistas de 4 artículos gratuitos este mes

Acceda a OrtoEvidencia por tan sólo 1,99 $ a la semana.

Manténgase conectado con las últimas pruebas. Cancele en cualquier momento.
  • Valoraciones críticas de los últimos ensayos controlados aleatorizados de gran impacto y revisiones sistemáticas en ortopedia
  • Acceso al contenido del podcast OrthoEvidence, que incluye colaboraciones con el Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas con cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente y mesas redondas sobre noticias y temas ortopédicos
  • Suscripción a The Pulse, un boletín quincenal basado en la evidencia y diseñado para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones clínicas
Upgrade
Bienvenido
¿Ha olvidado su contraseña?
Comience hoy mismo su prueba GRATUITA

Su cuenta estará afiliada a
e incluye acceso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
¿Olvidó su contraseña?

O
Compruebe su correo electrónico

Si existe una cuenta con la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada, se le enviará un correo electrónico para restablecer la contraseña. Si no ve el correo electrónico, compruebe su carpeta de correo no deseado o spam.

Si necesita más ayuda póngase en contacto con nuestro equipo de asistencia.

Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Traducir Informe ACE

OrthoEvidence utiliza un servicio de traducción de terceros para que el contenido sea accesible en varios idiomas. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque se hace todo lo posible para garantizar la exactitud, las traducciones no siempre son perfectas.

Cómo citar esto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis vs. ORIF for distal tibia fractures. OE Journal. 2013;1(16):48. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/

Copiar cita
Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Función de miembro Premium

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta Premium de OrthoEvidence.

Compartir ACE Report