Abstract
Statement of Purpose
To compare the functional outcome of Distal Tibial Metaphyseal fracture treated with Circular frame compared vs. Locking Plate
Methods and Results
Distal Tibial Metaphyseal fractures were retrospectively identified over an 18 month period. Each fracture was assessed individually using radiographs. All paediatric, compound, tibial plateau and intra-articular fractures were excluded from the study. Other methods of fixation including intramedullary nailing were also excluded. The remaining fractures were assigned to either the circular frame fixation or the locking plate intervention group. Outcomes were assessed using radiographs for union dates and microbiology results for evidence of infection. Patients were followed up by postal questionnaires, which included a modified American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), the Olerud and Molander Score (O&M) and a custom questionnaire. The custom questionnaire asked about co-morbidities, smoking status and work days lost following surgery. After exclusions, 30 patients (Frame=15, Plate=15), were sent out questionnaires via post. We received completed questionnaires from 21 patients (Frame=11, Plate=10) giving us a response rate of 70%. Results show no difference in infection rates, skin necrosis, non-union or re-operation rates. There was also no significant difference in patient AOFAS and O&M scores at follow up.
Conclusion
There is no significant difference in complications and functional Outcomes between locking plate fixation and circular frames in the treatment of distal Tibial Metaphyseal fractures.
