Abstract
Management of open tibial fractures remains controversial. We hypothesised that unreamed intramedullary nail offers inherent advantages of nail as well as external fixation. We undertook a prospective randomised study to compare the results of management of open tibial fractures with either an external fixator or an undreamed intramedullary nail until fracture union or failure.
Our study included 30 consecutive open tibial fractures (Gustilo I, II & IIIA) between 4 cm distal to knee and 4 cm proximal to ankle in skeletally mature adults, who presented to a level-1 trauma centre. Alternate patients were treated by either external fixation and unreamed nailing i.e. 15 in each group. Standard protocol for debridement and fixation was followed in all cases. All external fixators were removed at 6 weeks. All cases were followed up until fracture union, the main outcome measurement. 26 (87%) were males and 4 (13%) females; age range was 20-60 years (average 33.8).
All fractures in both groups united. Time to union averaged 7.9 months for both groups. Incidence of wound problems, infection, hardware failure and delayed union were comparable. However, there was higher incidence of angular deformities and stiffness of knee and ankle in external fixation group, although not statistically significant.
We found no statistically significant difference between unreamed intramedullary nailing and external fixation for the management of open tibial diaphyseal fractures, although ease of weight bearing as well as absence of angular deformities and joint stiffness were distinct advantages in the nail group. Therefore we recommend unreamed nail for Gustilo I, II and IIIA open tibial fractures.
