Title of article :
Are Rush Nails Still a Good Choice for Fibula Fixation in Ankle Fractures? A Retrospective Study with Five Years Follow Up
Author/Authors :
Morelli ، Federico Department of Trauma and Orthopedics - Sant’Andrea Hospital - Sapienza University of Rome , Princi ، Giorgio Department of Trauma and Orthopedics - Sant’Andrea Hospital - Sapienza University of Rome , Caperna ، Ludovico Department of Trauma and Orthopedics - Sant’Andrea Hospital - Sapienza University of Rome , Niccolo ، Riccardo Di Department of Trauma and Orthopedics - Sant’Andrea Hospital - Sapienza University of Rome , Cantagalli ، Matteo Romano Department of Trauma and Orthopedics - Sant’Andrea Hospital - Sapienza University of Rome , Mazza ، Daniele Department of Trauma and Orthopedics - Sant’Andrea Hospital - Sapienza University of Rome , Ferretti ، Andrea Department of Trauma and Orthopedics - Sant’Andrea Hospital - Sapienza University of Rome
From page :
337
To page :
341
Abstract :
Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate if Rush nail fixation still has a role in distal fibular fractures surgery compared with locking plate in terms of fixation quality, complications, functional results and patient satisfaction level. Methods: This study included 109 patients (average age 56.05), who had undergone operative treatment for bi- or trimalleolar fractures between 2009 and 2014. The patients were evaluated retrospectively, divided in group A (57 patients treated with Rush nail) and group B (52 patients treated with locking plate). The patients were evaluated at an average 4.9 years of follow-up (SD: 1.01) with Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society - Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for clinical outcomes. X-rays were conducted to assess ankle osteoarthritis using the classification system by Takakura and joint space symmetry using measurements in comparison with contralateral ankles. Results: The groups were homogeneous regarding age and gender. Patients treated with Rush Nail fixation (Group A) showed statistically significant worse clinical results at functional scores (78.1 Group A versus 88.7 Group B at the OMAS (P 0.05); 83.1 Group A versus 90.1 Group B at the AOFAS (P 0.05); higher pain levels in the VAS (3.9 Group A versus 2.4 Group B) and lower satisfaction rates (52.6% Group A versus 73.1% Group B (P 0.05)) in comparison with patients treated with locking plate fixation (Group B). However, infections rate was significantly lower in Group A (1.8%) than in Group B (9.6%) (P 0.05). Radiographic evaluation showed more cases of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in Group A (35.1% Group A versus 15.4% Group B (P 0.05)) and worse results in regards to restoration of joint space symmetry (45.6% Group A versus 73.1% Group B (P 0.05)). Conclusion: Results of current study indicates that even though plating of lateral malleolus in bimalleolar and trimalleolar fractures is superior in fracture reduction quality, early functional recovery, reduced incidence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and greater patient satisfaction, Rush nail fixation still provides acceptable clinical results with a lower infection rate. Therefore Rush nails could be considered as a valid choice in selected patients with high risk of soft tissue complications or low functional demand.
Keywords :
Ankle , Fibular plate , Fixation devices , Fracture , Rush nail
Journal title :
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Journal title :
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Record number :
2738462
Link To Document :
بازگشت