Is Refracture a Concern Following Closed Management of Tibia Shaft Fractures in Children?

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. 14. Iowa Orthop J. 2016;36:133-7. A Biomechanical Comparison Of Pin Configurations Used For Percutaneous Pinning Of Distal Tibia Fractures In Children. Brantley J(1), Majumdar A(2), Jobe JT(2), Kallur A(2), Salas C(3). Author information: (1)Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation; Center for Biomedical Engineering. (2)Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation. (3)Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation; Center for Biomedical Engineering; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous pin fixation is often used in conjunction with closed-reduction and cast immobilization to treat pediatric distal tibia fractures. The goal of this procedure is to maintain reduction and provide improved stabilization, in effort to facilitate a more anatomic union. We conducted a biomechanical study of the torsional and bending stability of three commonly used pin configurations in distal tibia fracture fixation. METHODS: A transverse fracture was simulated at the metaphyseal/diaphyseal junction in 15 synthetic tibias. Each fracture was reduced and fixed with two Kirschner wires, arranged in one of three pin configurations: parallel, retrograde, medial to lateral pins entering at the medial malleolus distal to the fracture (group A); parallel, antegrade, medial to lateral pins entering at the medial diaphysis proximal to the fracture (group B); or a cross-pin configuration with one retrograde, medial to lateral pin entering the medial malleolus distal to the fracture and the second an antegrade, medial to lateral pin entering at the medial diaphysis proximal to the fracture (group C). Stability of each construct was assessed by resistance to torsion and bending. RESULTS: Resistance to external rotation stress was significantly higher in group A than group B (P = 0.044). Resistance to internal rotation stress was significantly higher in group C than group B (P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in torsional stiffness when comparing group A with group C. Under a medial-directed load, group B and C specimens were significantly stiffer than those in group A (28 N/mm and 24 N/mm vs. 14 N/mm for A; P = 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: None of the three pin configurations produced superior results with respect to all variables studied. Group A configuration provided the highest resistance to external rotation forces, which is the most clinically relevant variable under short-cast immobilization. Parallel, retrograde, medial to lateral pins entering at the medial malleolus provide the greatest resistance to external rotation of the foot while minimizing the potential for iatrogenic injury to soft tissue structures. PMCID: PMC4910788