Surgical Techniques for Complex Proximal Tibial Fractures

8/20/2019 Surgical Techniques for Complex Proximal Tibial Fractures

1/13

Selected

InstructionalCourse Lectures

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

PAU L TORNETTA II I

EDITOR , VOL. 61

COMMITTEE

PAU L TORNETTA II ICHAIR

K ENNETH A. EGOL

MARY I. O’CONNOR

MARK PAGNANO

R OBERT A. HART

EX -O FFICIO

DEMPSEY S. SPRINGFIELDDEPUTY EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY

FOR INSTRUCTIONAL COURSE LECTURES

Printed with permission of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. This article, as well as other lectures

presented at the Academy’s Annual Meeting, will be available in February 2012 in Instructional Course Lectures, Volume 61.The complete volume can be ordered online at www.aaos.org,or by calling 800-626-6726 (8 A . M .-5 P . M ., Central time).

1547


2/13

Surgical Techniques for Complex Proximal Tibial Fractures

Jason A. Lowe, MD, Nirmal Tejwani, MD, Brad Yoo, MD, and Philip Wolinsky, MD

An Instructional Course Lecture, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Traditional and Alternative Surgical

Approaches to the Tibial Plateau:

How to Select Them?

Any surgical approach for fracture fix-ation should facilitate visualization of fracture fragments and allow the appli-cation of optimal fixation devices andsoft-tissue repair. Treatment goals ap-plied to tibial plateau fractures includeanatomic articular surface reduction,restoration of the anatomic axis, andpreservation of the menisci. The ap-

proach should not devitalize soft tissuesor cause further injury to surrounding structures. An ideal surgical dissectionencompasses these principles and per-mits early joint motion.

The midline longitudinal incisionis the favored approach to the knee joint,as this incision facilitates knee replace-ment if needed in the future. Surgicalexposure for complex injuries (bicon-dylar fractures) requiring dual fixationneeds large medial and lateral flaps thatadd to soft-tissue complications. Other

surgical approaches allowing a moredirect approach to the fracture to de-crease the risk of soft-tissue injury from

excessive retraction or periosteal strip-ping are available. When one incisiondoes not adequately expose the fracture,it is better to use a dual incision than asingle midline exposure1-3.

Anterolateral ApproachThe anterolateral approach is used forthe most commonly seen tibial plateaufractures (Schatzker4 types I, II, andIII). It is also used for the lateral part of a dual incision approach needed for

internal fixation of a bicolumnar frac-ture. The incision is centered onGerdy’s tubercle and is shaped as alazy S or a hockey stick. The fascia iselevated off the tibial tubercle to exposethe lateral tibial plateau. The kneecapsule is incised, and a submeniscalarthrotomy allows visualization of thearticular surface (Figs. 1 and 2). Inaddition to visualization of the articularsurface, this approach allows repair of any meniscal tears.

Medial ApproachThe medial approach is used for amedial tibial plateau fracture (Schatzker

type IV) or as part of a dual approach tothe plateau. The incision parallels theposteromedial border of the proximalpart of the tibia. The pes anserinus iselevated, the fracture reduced, andfixation implants are placed beneaththe pes anserinus. The pes anserinusmay either be retracted (Fig. 3) orincised, with repair after fracture fixa-tion. The medial meniscus cannot beelevated as is possible with the lateralmeniscus; therefore, the limitation of

this approach is the limited visualiza-tion of the articular surface of themedial plateau. Also, access to the pos-terior plateau is limited, but the medialapproach can be converted to a postero-medial approach.

Anterior Approach with Tibial Tubercle Osteotomy The advantage of the anterior approachwith osteotomy of the tibial tubercle isthat the tibial plateau and the intercon-dylar notch are completely exposed,

allowing reattachment or primary su-ture of the cruciate ligaments5. Thisapproach is rarely used, and most

Disclosure: None of theauthors received paymentsor services, eitherdirectlyor indirectly (i.e., via hisor herinstitution), froma third party in support of any

aspect of this work. One or more of the authors, or his or her institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this

work, with an entity in thebiomedical arena that could be perceivedto influence or have thepotential to influence what is writtenin this work. No authorhas

had any other relationships, or has engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in

this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by authors are always provided with the online version of the article.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1548-59

1548

T H E J O U R N A L O F B O N E & J O I N T S U R G E R Y d J B J S . O RGVO L U M E 9 3 - A d NU M B E R 16 d A U G U S T 1 7 , 2 0 1 1

S U R G I C A L T E C H N I Q U E S F O R C O M P L E X

P R O X I M A L T I B I A L F R A C T U R E S


3/13

complex, bicondylar fractures are now treated with use of dual incisions.

Posteromedial ApproachMedial tibial plateau fractures extend-ing to the posterior aspect of the tibialplateau, posterior metaphyseal frac-tures, or those that require a buttresson the posteromedial cortex are bestfixed with use of the posteromedialapproach. Fragment-specific fixation

of the medial plateau is recommendedover stabilization with a laterally basedlocking construct6. To obtain optimal

fixation of bicondylar fractures, a dualplating technique is recommended,with one plate fixing the medial frag-ment and one fixing the lateral plateau.Medial plateau fractures may be me-dial or posteromedial, with each re-quiring a plate to be, ideally, placed atthe apex of the fracture (fragment-specific).

The patient can be positionedprone or supine7. An incision is made

over the posteromedial aspect of theknee (Fig. 4). Dissection between themedial head of the gastrocnemius mus-

cle and the semitendinosus muscleallows exposure of the semimembra-nosus muscle, which is detached forbetter access to the posterior aspect of the tibia. Visualization of the articularsurface is limited, but, if necessary,visualization can be improved with alongitudinal split in the medial collat-eral ligament and capsule. Through thisincision, visualization of the articularcartilage can aid in congruent jointreduction.

Posterior ApproachAn isolated posterior shear fracture, aposterior cruciate ligament avulsionfracture with a large osseous fragment,or a posterior fracture dislocation is best

exposed with a posterior approach8,9. A z-shaped incision across the flexorcrease is used. The deep tissue planes arebetween the medial head of the gas-trocnemius and the semimembranosusmuscles or between the two heads of thegastrocnemius muscle with protectionof the neurovascular structures. Themedial or lateral head of the gastrocne-mius muscle may be partially detached,if it is necessary to improve exposure,enable fracture reduction, or insertfixation on the posterior rim.

Extended Lateral Approach withFibular Osteotomy The Lobenhoffer approach is used toexpose fractures of the lateral tibialplateau that extend posteriorly when thehead of the fibula limits the exposure10,11.

The skin incision is made along the course of the peroneal nerve, pos-terior to the fibular head. After dissec-tion, the common peroneal nerve isprotected and an osteotomy of the fibulaat the junction of the head and neck is

performed, leaving the proximal at-tachments intact. This allows exposureof the tibial plateau from anterior toposterior.

Another way to approach theposterolateral plateau is without a fibu-lar osteotomy 10. Absence of an osteot-omy makes it more difficult to visualizethe tibial fracture at the level of thefibular head; however, this approachis preferred as it avoids the risk of anonunion at the fibular osteotomy site.

Fig. 1

Clinical photograph of a patient’sright knee withthelazy-S incision used forinternalfixationof a lateral

proximal tibial fracture.

Fig. 2

Clinical photograph of a patient’s right knee with retention sutures in the lateral meniscus (white

arrow) of a submeniscal arthrotomy.

1549



P R O X I M A L T I B I A L FR A C T U R E S


4/13

Medial Tibial Plateau ReductionA shearing force produces a coronalplane fracture comprising approxi-mately 25% of the medial articularsurface12. This fragment is seen on alateral radiograph, but the full extent of articular involvement is best appreci-ated on sagittal computed tomography (CT) images. Since the medial collat-

eral ligament (MCL) prevents a sub-meniscal arthrotomy, reduction of themedial joint line is often obtainedindirectly with anatomic restoration of the medial cortex. If there is a questionabout the accuracy of the reduction of the articular surface of the medialplateau, a longitudinal incision is madein the MCL, where the fracture enters

the medial aspect of the joint. Ana-tomic reduction is confirmed by aligning the articular cartilage of eachfragment while the cortex is reducedwith a well-placed Weber clamp per-pendicular to the fracture. This white-white read of the medial plateauarticular cartilage augments accuracy of reduction.

Medial Plateau FixationSurgical stabilization of isolated me-dial plateau fractures (Schatzker typeIV) is accomplished with an under-contoured, nonlocking, flexible plate(1/3 T-plate or reconstruction plate)applied as a buttress. Fixation of themedial plateau in Schatzker type-V and

VI fractures is more controversial.Stabilization can be accomplished withlocking screws placed through a later-ally based implant alone or stabilizedwith a medial plate as part of a dualplating construct (medial and lateralplate)13-17. Biomechanical and clinicaldata support both techniques. Al-though lateral-only locked plates re-duce surgical time, blood loss, andlimit soft-tissue stripping, a high rateof articular subsistence (26%) has beenreported13-17. Displacement of the me-

dial fragment can result in knee in-stability, pain, and posttraumaticosteoarthritis12. The authors, there-fore, recommend fragment-specificfixation of the posteromedial and lat-eral plateau through a two-incisionapproach for bicondylar tibial plateaufractures. Fragment-specific fixation of the medial plateau avoids inadequatepurchase of the posteromedial frag-ment observed with lateral-only lock-ing screws6,16-18. The benefit of addedfracture stability is offset by g reater

surgical time and higher postoperativeinfection rates. Current reports havedemonstrated postoperative infectionrates of 8.4% with dual plating com-pared with 1.6% with lateral-only fixation13,14. In the absence of a pro-spective, randomized, controlled trialcomparing these surgical approaches,the need for anatomic reduction of the joint surface and adequate stabiliza-tion of the medial plateau takesprecedence.

Fig. 3Clinical photograph of a patient’s left knee with a medial incision (patient’s head is to the left). The

tendons of the pes anserinus (white arrow) are seen over the clamp.

Fig. 4

Clinical photograph of a patient’s right knee. With the patient in the prone position, the solid line

identifiesthe level of thekneejointwith thefemurto theleft.The dashedline illustrates an incision for

a posterior-medial incision.

1550





5/13

Lateral Plateau Articular ReductionHigh-energy bicondylar tibial fracturesare typically associated with articularsurface impaction of the lateral plateau.Successful restoration of the lateralaspect of the joint requires adequatevisualization and an array of reduction

techniques. A submeniscal arthrotomy and a laterally based femoral distractorimprove visualization of the articularsurface when needed. A single Schanzpin is placed into the femoral meta-physis, parallel to the joint line, and asecond Schanz pin is placed in the tibia,distal to planned plate placement lo-cation19. Care must be used withplacement of a lateral tibial pin so as tonot injure the neurovascular struc-tures of the anterior compartment20.Applying distraction opens the joint

and enhances visualization of the lat-eral plateau. Retraction of the postero-lateral or anterolateral fragments(opening the door) can allow evenmore v isualization.

Mobile articular pieces are re-duced with a dental pick or a small (0.45to 0.62-mm) wire and are temporarily stabilized with Kirschner wires. Im-pacted articular fragments must bemobilized from surrounding cancellousbone before they can be reduced. A 1/4

to 1/2 in (0.64 to 1.3-cm) osteotomeor bone tamp is used to elevate 1.0 to1.5 cm of cancellous bone with the ar-ticular segment. Once levered into po-sition, the fragment is stabilized withKirschner wires. With the impactedsegment reduced and secured with wirefixation, bone voids can be filled withgraft material and the lateral segmentcan be reduced (closing the door). Themedial and lateral plateaus can be re-duced and compressed with a periartic-ular reduction clamp19.

The contained defect of a puredepression fracture cannot be reducedwithout an osteotomy. If there is anincomplete fracture, the articular seg-ment is accessed by completing the

fracture and reducing the articularfragment as described above. If there isno cortical fracture, articular reductionis done with one of two techniques. The

Fig. 5

Clinical intraoperative photograph of a patient’s left knee, demonstrating incisions for minimally

invasive plate osteosynthesis.

Fig. 6

Anteroposterior radiograph of a knee

illustrating the inability of locking

screws to reduce the valgus malalign-

mentin the coronal plane. Asa result, a

valgus malunion, with the plate poorly

apposed to the tibia, is observed.

1551





6/13

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 7 Anteroposterior and lateral

radiographs of an extra-articular

proximal tibial fracture demon-

strating the most common defor-

mities (valgus and procurvatum)

observed in these fractures. Fig. 8

Anteroposterior radiographs

showing how a medial starting

site produces a valgus deformity

as the intramedullary device en-

ters the tibial diaphysis.

1552





7/13

anterior compartment is released fromthe metaphyseal flare for both. Onetechnique is to use the DHS (DynamicHip Screw; Synthes, Paoli, Pennsylvania)set and fluoroscopic visualization. Theguidewire is directed from the lateraltibial metaphysis toward the impactedsegment. The cortex is then opened withthe cannulated 11-mm reamer from theDHS system. Bone tamps are introducedand used to tap the articular segmentinto place. The articular reduction isconfirmed by direct visualizationthrough the submeniscal arthrotomy.Alternatively, a lateral osteotomy ismade with drill holes (2.0-mm drill-bit) in a diamond pattern, with thedrill holes connected with use of a

0.25-in (0.64-cm) osteotome. Thearticular segment is reduced as justdescribed. With either technique, thearticular fragments can be supportedwith Kirschner wires and bone graftprior to definitive fixation.

Lateral Plateau FixationSurgical stabilization of the lateralplateau must maintain reduction andrigid fixation of the articular segmentto a well-aligned tibial shaft. The jointsurface is stabilized with multiple

parallel screws placed just beneaththe subchondral bone. These rafting screws support the reduced articularsurface fragments and can be the prox-imal screws of a 3.5-mm or a 4.5-mm,precontoured periarticular plate or withminifragment (2.4 or 2.7-mm) screws.Minifragment screws and plates arefavored for articular comminutionwith fragments having minimal sub-chondral bone or when the proximalscrews in the precontoured plate arenot subchondral.

The articular segment is reducedto the shaft with traction (a manual orfemoral distractor). First, the plate isfixed to the proximal segment withbicortical screws (locked or nonlocked)inserted parallel to the joint21. The plateis reduced to the tibial shaft with abicortical screw or a so-called whirlybirdpush-pull type of device. It is importantto ensure that this does not malreducethe fracture in the coronal plane, andlocking screws should not be placed in

the distal segment until the alignment iscorrect22.

Minimally Invasive Plate OsteosynthesisThe proximal tibial anatomy and fracturepattern must be clearly understood if precontoured plates are used with mini-mally invasive techniques. The articularsurface is visualized with a small arthrot-omy, and percutaneous techniques areused for screw placement into the tibialshaft (Fig. 5). One must be careful whenthis technique is used for plates longerthan eleven holes, as the neurovascularbundles in the anterior and lateral com-partments are at risk 12,23.

Locking ScrewsLocking screws increase construct ri-gidity, but they should be placedbicortically 21,24. They are useful in se-verely osteoporotic bone, substantialmetaphyseal-diaphyseal comminution,

or short-segment periarticular and/orintra-articular fractures. Malunion hasbeen a problem, and it is necessary topay meticulous attention to fracturereduction before placement of locking screws (Fig. 6)25.

Intramedullary Nailing of Proximal Tibial FracturesThe use of an intramedullary nail forfracture stabilization is appealing. Theinsertion point of an intramedullary nailis remote from the fracture site, mini-mizing vascular disruption of the fracturefragments, the implants are centrally located, and tibial diaphyseal fractureshave a high rate of union and low rate of complications. As a result, the use of

intramedullary nailing for tibial fractureshas expanded from mid-shaft diaphysealfractures to proximal fractures26-32. In-tramedullary nail fixation is technically more demanding for proximal tibialfractures than for diaphyseal fractures.

Fig. 9

Lateral radiographs showing how an inferior starting site and posterior nail trajectory produce a

procurvatum deformity of the proximal segment as the nail enters the diaphysis.

1553





8/13

Fig. 10 Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Fig. 10 Anteroposterior radiograph demonstrating an

appropriate starting site, just medial to the lateral tibial

spineand inline with themechanicalaxis.Fig.11 Lateral

radiograph demonstrating a correctly selected starting

site and wire trajectory. The wire is just anterior to the

articularmargin anddirectedparallelto theanteriortibial

cortex. Fig. 12 Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs

with a protection sleeve for a retropatellar tibial nail

centered at an appropriate starting site.

1554





9/13

Unlike intramedullary nailing of a di-aphyseal fracture, placement of the in-tramedullary nail does not reduce aproximal tibial fracture, and malreduc-tions of proximal tibial fractures withintramedullary nail fixation are reportedto be as high as 84%27,33-36.

The typical deformity caused by intramedullary nailing of proximal tibialfractures is valgus and apex anteriorangulation with anterior translation of the proximal fragment (Fig. 7). Thevalgus deformity is due to an imbalanceof muscle forces on the proximal frag-ment and is accentuated when theinsertion point is too medial or directedlaterally. The tip of the nail can abut thelateral cortex causing the proximal

fragment to rotate into a valgus position(Fig. 8)34,35,37. The apex anterior deformity results from a combination of the pull of the patellar tendon34, a distal insertionsite, or a posteriorly directed nail thatdeflects off the posterior tibial cortex androtates the proximal fragment (Fig. 9).Nails with an accentuated distal Herzog bend may translate the proximal frag-ment anteriorly, described by Henley et al. as the wedge effect38.

To prevent malalignment of proximal tibial fractures during intra-

medullary nailing, one should properly place the starting point; reduce thefracture prior to guidewire placement,reaming, and nail insertion; and holdthe reduction until all of the locking bolts have been inserted.

The Proper Starting Point Fluoroscopic imaging is used to obtaingood anteroposterior and lateral C-armimages of the knee. The starting pointon the anteroposterior radiograph is inline with the medial border of the lateral

tibial spine (Fig. 10). The insertion siteon the lateral radiograph is slightly anterior to the anterior margin of thearticular surface. The guidewire and nailare inserted as parallel to the anteriorcortex as possible (Fig. 11).

Fracture Reduction Techniques

Extended Leg PositionIt is critical to reduce the fracture andmaintain the reduction during fracturefixation. The intraoperative position of

the leg affects fracture reduction. Whenthe knee is maximally flexed, whichfacilitates collinear insertion of the nail

with the anterior tibial cortex, the pull of the patellar tendon increases the apex anterior deformity. When this occurs, the

Fig. 13

Anteroposteriorand lateral radiographswith a proximal Schanz pin for the AO distractor, appropriately

placed parallel to the articular surface (left) and posterior to the nail path (right).

Fig. 14

Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs demonstrating an appropriately placed distal Schanz pin

inserted parallel to the ankle joint and posterior to the nail path.

1555





10/13

apex deformity can be limited by placing the instrumentation in the leg withminimal knee flexion39. Originally, semi-extended nailing was performed througha large medial parapatellar incision;however, it can now be done with a smallsuprapatellar incision. The instrumentsand nail are passed through protectivesleeves, posterior to the patella to theproximal part of the tibia (Fig. 12)16.Recent studies have suggested this tech-nique can be used without injury to thepatella or femoral articular cartilage, themenisci, or the anterior cruciate liga-ment16,18,40. No outcomes data are avail-able for this technique.

Use of a Femoral Distractor or an

External Fixation Frame A universal distractor or an externalfixator can be used to obtain andmaintain fracture reduction. With useof fluoroscopic imaging, a proximalSchanz pin is inserted from the medialside of the proximal part of the tibiaposterior to the planned intramedul-lary nail path (Fig. 13), and a distalSchanz pin is placed medially in theposterior malleolus (behind the nail) orat the level of the physeal scar (Fig. 14).The pins should be inserted parallel

to the proximal and distal joint lines.Application of traction through theframe until the pins are parallel typi-cally results in adequate reduction34,41.

Temporary Plate FixationA small plate can be used as a temporary reduction device29,42. The plate may beplaced on the medial or lateral tibialborder, but the medial border is bettersince the medial side of the fracture isoften less comminuted. The medialincision is positioned posterior to the

posterior borders of the tibia so that if the incision fails to heal, no bone will beexposed (Fig. 15). Minimal deep dis-section is needed, and the plate is placedover intact periosteum. Unicorticalscrews are used so the reamer and nailcan pass. After insertion of the nail andall interlocking screws, the plate may beremoved or the screws on the proximalside of the fracture may be taken out.The plate then acts as a buttress con-struct, preventing a deformity from

recurring while permitting relative mo-tion at the fracture site.

Blocking ScrewsSo-called blocking or Poller screws canbe used during intramedullary nailing of proximal tibial fractures. They areplaced preemptively in an effort toprevent a deformity or as a so-called

bailout after deformity has occurred.They are used to narrow the canal, tocreate a path, or as an artificial cortex for the nail to pass down28,33,43.

Blocking screws are inserted per-pendicular to the plane of the deformity,on the concave side of the deformity,within the more mobile fracture segment.For example, with a valgus deformity, thescrew is placed from anterior to posterior,on the lateral side of the instrument path,and in the proximal segment (Fig. 16).

The screw functions as a so-called artifi-cial cortex.

Blocking screws can also be usedfor an anterior malalignment. Theblocking screw is placed slightly poste-rior to the midline, from medial tolateral, in the proximal fragment (Fig.16). As a nail is inserted, it contacts theblocking screw, extending the proximal

fragment and decreasing the apex ante-rior deformity. The screw should not beplaced in the midline since nail passagemay be blocked by the screw.

Percutaneous ClampsThe orientation of a fracture line may allow percutaneous placement of areduction clamp to obtain and maintainthe reduction (Fig. 17). The use of clamps has not been shown to increaseinfection rates44.

Fig. 15

Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs with a provisional locking plate on the posteromedial tibial

cortex. Unicortical locking screws are used so as to not obstruct insertion of reamers or the intra-

medullary implant.

1556





11/13

Implant SelectionIt is important to know the implants inorder to ensure that at least two locking screws can be placed in the proximalsegment. The distance from the end of the nail to the locking bolts determineshow far proximal or distal fracture linescan extend and still be stabilized by theintramedullary nail. The number andorientation of the proximal and distalinterlocking bolts vary by implant.Oblique bolts have demonstrated more

stability than transverse bolts in resist-ing coronal plane deformity, but notaxial or torsional stability 38. The com-bination of oblique and transverseinterlocking screws increases constructstability 45,46. Intramedullary deviceswith a distal Herzog bend may accen-tuate a sagittal plane deformity because,as the Herzog bend contacts the pos-terior cortex, it can create a so-calledwedge effect and translate the proximalsegment anteriorly (Fig. 18)38.

Complications and Pitfalls

Knee pain, after intramedullary nailing of the tibia, affects 60% to 70% of patients47-50. The anterior knee pain isexacerbated by kneeling, squatting, stairclimbing, or high-performance athleticactivities. Implant removal after fractureunion has had inconsistent results withregard to relieving anterior knee pain.There is no difference in the prevalenceof knee pain when a transpatellar orparapatellar incision is used.

The prevalence of malunion hasbeen reported to be as high as 84%36.With use of the techniques described inthis article, malunion rates have beenreduced to between 8% and 23%28,29,31.Strict attention to surgical techniqueand the use of reduction aids decreasethe prevalence of malreduction.

Infections and nonunions aremost commonly associated with openand/or comminuted fractures29,31,36,42,51.Ultimate union rates of 91% to 100%

have been reported, but the union ratefollowing primary fixation is approxi-mately 77%28,29,36,42. Lindvall et al. re-ported a 100% union rate for closedtibial fractures and a 23% rate of non-union for open fractures stabilized withan intramedullary nail31.

Patient-specific contraindications tothe use of an intramedullary nail includeopen physes, intramedullary canals toonarrow to allow insertion of a nail, pre-existing canal deformities, knee contrac-tures, and so-called blocking hardwaresuch as an ipsilateral knee replacement orknee fusion. Fracture-specific contraindi-cations to the use of an intramedullary nailinclude substantial intra-articular in-volvement, and short extra-articular seg-

ments that preclude placement of at leasttwo interlocking screws6.

Nails Compared with Plates

A literature meta-analysis found a trendtoward an increased prevalence of mal-union after intramedullary nailing compared with plate and screw osteo-synthesis (p = 0.06), but a lower infec-tion rate after intramedullary nailing (p < 0.05)52. Lindvall et al. also demon-strated a trend toward a higher mal-union rate for intramedullary nailing

(p = 0.103), a threefold increased rate of hardware removal after plate and screw fixation, and no difference in implantfailure between these two techniques31.Both intramedullary nails and plates canbe inserted with use of surgical tech-niques that respect the local soft-tissuebiology. These techniques optimizefracture-healing and contribute to ahigh rate of fracture union for bothoperative procedures27,29,52,53.

Implant failure has been reportedfor both intramedullary nails and

plates35,36,53. Early studies of intramedullary nails had implant failure rates as high as25%, while only 2.6% of plates failed36,53.Many early failures of intramedullary nailsinvolved small-diameter locking bolts24.More recent literature has demonstratedsimilar prevalences of implant failure forintramedullary nails and plates2,28,31,34,54,55.

Overview

Extra-articular proximal tibial fractures aretechnically demanding fractures to treat.

Fig. 16

Anteroposterior and lateral radiographsdemonstrating properpositioning of blocking screwsto aid in

fracture reduction and strengthen the implant construct. Anterior-posterior screws placed lateral to

the nail (whitelarge arrows) prevent valgusdeformation, and medial-lateral screws placed posteriorto

the nail (white small arrows) prevent procurvatum.

1557





12/13

Fixation with an intramedullary nail re-quires a firm understanding of the anat-omy of the proximal part of the tibia, thefracture pattern, the deforming forces, andthe implant system. The prevalence of malreduction can be reduced with use of meticulous surgical technique, a correctnail insertion site, and adjuvant reductionaids. The rates of postoperative infectionand nonunion are related more to the

nature of the injury (open and com-minuted) than to the implant. Patientsshould be educated on the occurrenceof postoperative functional knee pain,

which seems to occur more commonly in younger, more active patients.

Jason A. Lowe, MDUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham,510 20th Street South, FOT 960,Birmingham, AL 35294

Nirmal Tejwani, MDNYU Orthopedic Surgery Associates,301 East 17th Street, Suite 1403,New York, NY 10003

Brad Yoo, MDPhilip Wolinsky, MDDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery,University of California Davis,4860 Y Street, Suite 1700,Sacramento, CA 95817

Printed with permission of the AmericanAcademy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. This article,as well as other lectures presented at theAcademy’s Annual Meeting, will be available

in February 2012 in Instructional CourseLectures, Volume 61. The complete volumecan be ordered online at www.aaos.org, or by calling 800-626-6726 (8 A.M.-5 P.M., Central time).

References

1. Barei DP, Nork SE, Mills WJ, Coles CP, Henley MB,Benirschke SK. Functional outcomes of severebicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dualincisions and medial and lateral plates. J Bone JointSurg Am. 2006;88:1713-21.

2. EgolKA, Tejwani NC,Capla EL,Wolinsky PL,Koval KJ.Staged management of high-energy proximal tibia frac-

tures (OTA types 41): the results of a prospective, stan-dardized protocol. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:448-56.

3. Georgiadis GM. Combined anterior and posterior approaches for complex tibial plateau fractures.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:285-9.

4. Schatzker J, McBroom R, Bruce D. The tibialplateau fracture. The Toronto experience 1968-

1975. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;138:94-104.

5. Fernandez DL. Anterior approach to the knee withosteotomy of the tibial tubercle for bicondylar tibialfractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:208-19.

6. Barei DP, O’Mara TJ, Taitsman LA, Dunbar RP,Nork SE. Frequency and fracture morphology of the

Fig. 17 Fig. 18

Fig.17 Lateral intraoperative radiographwith a Weberclamp placed percutaneouslyto holdthe reductionduring nailinsertion.Fig.18 Lateral intraoperative

radiograph with a well-positioned guidewire (parallel to the anterior cortex) during reaming (left). Insertion of a nail with a low Herzog bend (black arrow)

showing displacement of the proximal fragment as it contacts the posterior cortex (right).

1558





13/13

posteromedial fragment in bicondylar tibial plateaufracture patterns. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:176-82.

7. Weil YA, Gardner MJ, Boraiah S, Helfet DL, LorichDG. Posteromedial supine approach for reduction andfixation of medial and bicondylar tibial plateau frac-tures. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:357-62.

8. Fakler JK, Ryzewicz M, Hartshorn C, Morgan SJ,Stahel PF, Smith WR. Optimizing the management of Mooretype I postero-medial splitfracture dislocationsof the tibial head: description of the Lobenhoffer approach. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:330-6.

9. Galla M, Lobenhoffer P. [The direct, dorsal ap-proach to the treatment of unstable tibial postero-medial fracture-dislocations]. Unfallchirurg. 2003;106:241-7. German.

10. Solomon LB, Stevenson AW, Baird RP, Pohl AP.Posterolateral transfibular approach to tibial plateaufractures: technique, results, and rationale. J OrthopTrauma. 2010;24:505-14.

11. Tao J,Hang DH, WangQG,GaoW, Zhu LB, WuXF,Gao KD. The posterolateral shearing tibial plateaufracture: treatment and results via a modified postero-lateral approach. Knee. 2008;15:473-9.

12. Higgins TF, Kemper D, Klatt J. Incidence and mor-

phologyof the posteromedial fragment in bicondylar tibialplateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:45-51.

13. Gosling T, Schandelmaier P, Muller M,Hankemeier S, Wagner M, Krettek C. Single laterallocked screw plating of bicondylar tibial plateaufractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;439:207-14.

14. Gösling T, Schandelmaier P, Marti A, Hufner T,Partenheimer A, Krettek C. Less invasive stabilizationof complex tibial plateau fractures: a biomechanicalevaluation of a unilateral locked screw plate anddouble plating. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:546-51.

15. Barei DP, Taitsman LA, Beingessner D, Dunbar RP, Nork SE. Open diaphyseal long bone fractures: areduction method using devitalized or extruded osse-ous fragments. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:574-8.

16. Eastman J, Tseng S, Lo E, Li CS, Yoo B, Lee M.Retropatellar technique for intramedullary nailing of proximal tibia fractures: a cadaveric assessment.

J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:672-6.17. Higgins TF, Klatt J, Bachus KN. Biomechanicalanalysis of bicondylar tibial plateau fixation: how doeslateral locking plate fixation compare to dual platefixation? J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:301-6.

18. Eastman JG, Tseng SS, Lee MA, Yoo BJ. Theretropatellar portal as an alternative site for tibial nailinsertion: a cadaveric study. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:659-64.

19. Koval KJ, Sanders R, Borrelli J, Helfet D,DiPasquale T, Mast JW. Indirect reduction and percu-taneous screw fixation of displaced tibial plateaufractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1992;6:340-6.

20. Pichler W, Grechenig W, Tesch NP, Weinberg AM,Heidari N, Clement H. The risk of iatrogenic injury tothe deep peroneal nerve in minimally invasive osteo-synthesis of the tibia with the less invasive stabilisa-tion system: a cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br.

2009;91:385-7.21. Dougherty PJ, Kim DG, Meisterling S, Wybo C,YeniY. Biomechanicalcomparison of bicortical versusunicortical screw placement of proximal tibia lockingplates: a cadaveric model. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:399-403.

22. Oh JK, Sahu D, Hwang JH, Cho JW, Oh CW.Technical pitfall while reducing the mismatch between

LCP PLT and upper end tibia in proximal tibia fractures.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130:759-63.

23. Musahl V,Tarkin I, Kobbe P,TzioupisC, SiskaPA,Pape HC. New trends and techniques in open reduc-tion and internal fixation of fractures of the tibialplateau. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:426-33.

24. Gautier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for the clinicalapplication of the LCP. Injury. 2003;34Suppl 2:B63-76.

25. Marsh JL,Muehling V,Dirschl D,HurwitzS, BrownTD, Nepola J. Tibial plafond fractures treated by articulated external fixation: a randomized trial of postoperative motion versus nonmotion. J OrthopTrauma. 2006;20:536-41.

26. Krettek C, Schandelmaier P, Tscherne H. Non-reamed interlocking nailing of closed tibial fractureswith severe soft tissue injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1995;315:34-47.

27. Bolhofner BR. Indirect reduction and compositefixation of extraarticular proximal tibial fractures. ClinOrthop Relat Res. 1995;315:75-83.

28. Ricci WM, O’Boyle M, Borrelli J, Bellabarba C,Sanders R. Fractures of the proximal third of the tibialshaft treated with intramedullary nails and blockingscrews. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:264-70.

29. Nork SE, Barei DP, Schildhauer TA, Agel J, HoltSK, Schrick JL, Sangeorzan BJ. Intramedullary nailingof proximal quarter tibial fractures. J Orthop Trauma.2006;20:523-8.

30. Vidyadhara S, Sharath KR. Prospective study of the clinico-radiological outcome of interlocked nailingin proximal third tibial shaft fractures. Injury. 2006;37:536-42.

31. LindvallE, Sanders R, Dipasquale T, Herscovici D,Haidukewych G, Sagi C. Intramedullary nailing versuspercutaneous locked plating of extra-articular proximaltibial fractures: comparison of 56 cases. J OrthopTrauma. 2009;23:485-92.

32. Nork SE, Schwartz AK, Agel J,Holt SK,SchrickJL,Winquist RA. Intramedullary nailing of distal meta-physeal tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1213-21.

33. Krettek C, Stephan C, Schandelmaier P, Richter

M, Pape HC, Miclau T. The use of Poller screws asblocking screws in stabilising tibial fractures treatedwith small diameter intramedullary nails. J Bone JointSurg Br. 1999;81:963-8.

34. Buehler KC, Green J, Woll TS, Duwelius PJ. Atechnique for intramedullary nailing of proximal thirdtibia fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:218-23.

35. Freedman EL, Johnson EE. Radiographic analy-sis of tibial fracture malalignment following intra-medullary nailing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;315:25-33.

36. Lang GJ, Cohen BE, Bosse MJ, Kellam JF.Proximal third tibial shaft fractures. Should they benailed? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;315:64-74.

37. Weninger P, Tschabitscher M, Traxler H, Pfafl V,Hertz H. Intramedullary nailing of proximal tibiafractures—an anatomical study comparing three lat-eral starting points for nail insertion. Injury. 2010;41:220-5.

38. Henley MB, Meier M, Tencer AF. Influences of some design parameters on the biomechanics of theunreamed tibial intramedullary nail. J Orthop Trauma.1993;7:311-9.

39. Tornetta P 3rd, Collins E. Semiextended positionof intramedullary nailing of the proximal tibia. ClinOrthop Relat Res. 1996;328:185-9.

40. Gelbke MK, Coombs D, Powell S, DiPasquale TG.Suprapatellar versus infra-patellar intramedullary nailinsertion of the tibia: a cadaveric model for compar-ison of patellofemoral contact pressures and forces.J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:665-71.

41. Wysocki RW, Kapotas JS, Virkus WW. Intramed-ullary nailing of proximal and distal one-third tibial

shaft fractures with intraoperative two-pin externalfixation. J Trauma. 2009;66:1135-9.

42. DunbarRP, Nork SE,Barei DP,Mills WJ.Provisionalplating of Type III open tibia fractures prior to intramed-ullary nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:412-4.

43. Shahulhameed A, Roberts CS, Ojike NI. Tech-nique for precise placement of poller screws withintramedullary nailing of metaphyseal fractures of thefemur and the tibia. Injury. 2010 May 18 [Epub aheadof print].

44. Tang P, Gates C, Hawes J, Vogt M, Prayson MJ.Does open reduction increase the chance of infectionduring intramedullary nailing of closed tibial shaftfractures? J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:317-22.

45. Laflamme GY, Heimlich D, Stephen D, Kreder HJ,Whyne CM. Proximal tibial fracture stability withintramedullary nail fixation using oblique interlockingscrews. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17:496-502.

46. Hansen M, Blum J, Mehler D, Hessmann MH,Rommens PM. Double or triple interlocking whennailing proximal tibial fractures? A biomechanicalinvestigation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:1715-9.

47. Court-Brown CM, Gustilo T, Shaw AD. Kneepain after intramedullary tibial nailing: its incidence,etiology, and outcome. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:103-5.

48. Keating JF, Orfaly R, O’Brien PJ. Knee pain after tibial nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:10-3.

49. Toivanen JA, Väistö O, Kannus P, Latvala K,Honkonen SE, Järvinen MJ. Anterior knee pain after intramedullary nailing of fractures of the tibial shaft. Aprospective, randomized study comparing two differ-ent nail-insertion techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2002;84:580-5.

50. Karladani AH, Ericsson PA, Granhed H, Karlsson

L, Nyberg P. Tibial intramedullary nails—

should they be removed? A retrospective study of 71 patients.Acta Orthop. 2007;78:668-71.

51. Gaebler C, BergerU, Schandelmaier P, Greitbauer M, Schauwecker HH, Applegate B, Zych G, Vécsei V.Rates and odds ratios for complications in closed andopen tibial fractures treated with unreamed, smalldiameter tibial nails: a multicenter analysis of 467cases. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:415-23.

52. Bhandari M, Audige L, Ellis T, Hanson B;Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group.Operative treatment of extra-articular proximal tibialfractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17:591-5.

53. Cole PA, Zlowodzki M, Kregor PJ. Treatment of proximal tibia fractures using the less invasive stabi-lization system: surgical experience and early clinicalresults in 77 fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:528-35.

54. Stannard JP, Wilson TC, Volgas DA, Alonso JE.Theless invasive stabilization system in the treatmentof complex fractures of the tibial plateau: short-termresults. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:552-8.

55. Ricci WM, Rudzki JR, Borrelli J Jr. Treatment of complex proximal tibia fractures with the less invasiveskeletal stabilization system. J Orthop Trauma.2004;18:521-7.

1559




Documents

Surgical Techniques for Complex Proximal Tibial Fractures