Randomized Trial of Reamed and Unreamed Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures
Top Cited Papers
- 1 December 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
- Vol. 90 (12), 2567-2578
- https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.g.01694
Abstract
Background: There remains a compelling biological rationale for both reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Previous small trials have left the evidence for either approach inconclusive. We compared reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing with regard to the rates of reoperations and complications in patients with tibial shaft fractures. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded randomized trial of 1319 adults in whom a tibial shaft fracture was treated with either reamed or unreamed intramedullary nailing. Perioperative care was standardized, and reoperations for nonunion before six months were disallowed. The primary composite outcome measured at twelve months postoperatively included bone-grafting, implant exchange, and dynamization in patients with a fracture gap of Results: One thousand two hundred and twenty-six participants (93%) completed one year of follow-up. Of these, 622 patients were randomized to reamed nailing and 604 patients were randomized to unreamed nailing. Among all patients, fifty-seven (4.6%) required implant exchange or bone-grafting because of nonunion. Among all patients, 105 in the reamed nailing group and 114 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary outcome event (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.15). In patients with closed fractures, forty-five (11%) of 416 in the reamed nailing group and sixty-eight (17%) of 410 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.96; p = 0.03). This difference was largely due to differences in dynamization. In patients with open fractures, sixty of 206 in the reamed nailing group and forty-six of 194 in the unreamed nailing group experienced a primary event (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.78; p = 0.16). Conclusions: The present study demonstrates a possible benefit for reamed intramedullary nailing in patients with closed fractures. We found no difference between approaches in patients with open fractures. Delaying reoperation for nonunion for at least six months may substantially decrease the need for reoperation. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Study to prospectively evaluate reamed intramedually nails in patients with tibial fractures (S.P.R.I.N.T.): Study rationale and designBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2008
- Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trialsBMJ, 2007
- Validity of composite end points in clinical trialsBMJ, 2005
- Need for expertise based randomised controlled trialsBMJ, 2005
- Should Insertion of Intramedullary Nails for Tibial Fractures Be With or Without Reaming?Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 2004
- Limiting loss to follow-up in a multicenter randomized trial in orthopedic surgeryControlled Clinical Trials, 2003
- Treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibiaThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2001
- Cortical Bone Blood Flow in Loose and Tight Fitting Locked Unreamed Intramedullary NailingJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 1998
- Soft-Tissue Blood Flow Following Reamed Versus Unreamed Locked Intramedullary Nailing: A Fractured Sheep Tibia ModelAnnals of Plastic Surgery, 1996
- Restoration of bone flow following fracture and reaming in rat femoraActa Orthopaedica, 1994