Difference in Pain, Complication Rates, and Clinical Outcomes After Suprapatellar Versus Infrapatellar Nailing for Tibia Fractures? A Systematic Review of 1447 Patients

Nils Jan Bleeker, Inge H F Reininga, Bryan J M van de Wall, Laurent A M Hendrickx, Frank J P Beeres, Kaj Ten Duis, Job N Doornberg, Ruurd L Jaarsma, Gino M M J Kerkhoffs, Frank F A IJpma, Nils Jan Bleeker, Inge H F Reininga, Bryan J M van de Wall, Laurent A M Hendrickx, Frank J P Beeres, Kaj Ten Duis, Job N Doornberg, Ruurd L Jaarsma, Gino M M J Kerkhoffs, Frank F A IJpma

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of suprapatellar (SP)-nailing versus infrapatellar (IP)-nailing of tibia fractures in anterior knee pain, complications (retropatellar chondropathy, infection, and malalignment) and physical functioning and quality of life. A clinical question-driven and thorough systematic review of current literature is provided.

Data source: PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2020 relating to SP and IP-nailing of tibia fractures. The study is performed in concordance with PRISMA-guidelines.

Study selection: Studies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting on outcomes of interest.

Data extraction: Data extraction was performed independently by 2 assessors. Methodological quality and risk of bias was assessed according to the guidelines of the McMaster Critical Appraisal.

Data synthesis: Continuous variables are presented as means with SD and dichotomous variables as frequency and percentages. The weighted mean, standardized weighted mean differences, and 95% confidence interval were calculated. A pooled analysis could not be performed because of differences in outcome measures, time-points, and heterogeneity.

Results: Fourteen studies with 1447 patients were analyzed. The weighted incidence of anterior knee pain was 29% after SP-nailing and 39% after IP-nailing, without reported significance. There was a significant lower rate of malalignment after the SP-approach (4% vs. 26%) with small absolute differences in all planes. No substantial differences were observed in retropatellar chondropathy, infection, physical functioning, and quality of life.

Conclusions: This systematic review does not reveal superiority of either technique in any of the respective outcomes of interest. Definitive choice should depend on the surgeon's experience and available resources.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Search syntax. Editor's Note: A color image accompanies the online version of this article.

References

    1. Tornetta P, III, Collins E. Semiextended position of intramedullary nailing of the proximal tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996:185–189.
    1. Tornetta P, III, Riina J, Geller J, et al. . Intraarticular anatomic risks of tibial nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;13:247–251.
    1. Cole JD. Distal tibia fracture: opinion: intramedullary nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:73–74.
    1. Court-Brown CM, Gustilo T, Shaw AD. Knee pain after intramedullary tibial nailing: its incidence, etiology, and outcome. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:103–105.
    1. Katsoulis E, Court-Brown C, Giannoudis PV. Incidence and aetiology of anterior knee pain after intramedullary nailing of the femur and tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:576–580.
    1. Lefaivre KA, Guy P, Chan H, et al. . Long-term follow-up of tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22:525–529.
    1. Toivanen JA, Vaisto O, Kannus P, et al. . Anterior knee pain after intramedullary nailing of fractures of the tibial shaft. A prospective, randomized study comparing two different nail-insertion techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:580–585.
    1. Avilucea FR, Triantafillou K, Whiting PS, et al. . Suprapatellar intramedullary nail technique lowers rate of malalignment of distal tibia fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30:557–560.
    1. Courtney PM, Boniello A, Donegan D, et al. . Functional knee outcomes in infrapatellar and suprapatellar tibial nailing: does approach matter? Am J Orthop. 2015;44:E513–E516.
    1. Jones M, Parry M, Whitehouse M, et al. . Radiologic outcome and patient-reported function after intramedullary nailing: a comparison of the retropatellar and infrapatellar approach. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:256–262.
    1. Bible JE, Choxi AA, Dhulipala S, et al. . Quantification of anterior cortical bone removal and intermeniscal ligament damage at the tibial nail entry zone using parapatellar and retropatellar approaches. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27:437–441.
    1. Chan DS, Serrano-Riera R, Griffing R, et al. . Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar tibial nail insertion: a prospective randomized control pilot study. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30:130–134.
    1. Gelbke MK, Coombs D, Powell S, et al. . Suprapatellar versus infra-patellar intramedullary nail insertion of the tibia: a cadaveric model for comparison of patellofemoral contact pressures and forces. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:665–671.
    1. Sanders RW, DiPasquale TG, Jordan CJ, et al. . Semiextended intramedullary nailing of the tibia using a suprapatellar approach: radiographic results and clinical outcomes at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:245–255.
    1. Zamora R, Wright C, Short A, et al. . Comparison between suprapatellar and parapatellar approaches for intramedullary nailing of the tibia. Cadaveric Study Inj. 2016;47:2087–2090.
    1. Marecek GS, Nicholson LT, Broghammer FH, et al. . Risk of knee sepsis after treatment of open tibia fractures: a multicenter comparison of suprapatellar and infrapatellar approaches. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:88–92.
    1. Mitchell PM, Weisenthal BM, Collinge CA. No incidence of postoperative knee sepsis with suprapatellar nailing of open tibia fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31:85–89.
    1. Chen X, Xu HT, Zhang HJ, et al. . Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar intramedullary nailing for treatment of tibial shaft fractures in adults. Med Baltim. 2018;97:e11799.
    1. Gao Z, Han W, Jia H. Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar intramedullary nailing for tibal shaft fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Baltim. 2018;97:e10917.
    1. Ibrahim I, Johnson A, Rodriguez EK. Improved outcomes with semi-extended nailing of tibial fractures? A systematic review. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33:155–160.
    1. Wang C, Chen E, Ye C, et al. . Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach for tibia intramedullary nailing: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2018;51:133–139.
    1. Yang L, Sun Y, Li G. Comparison of suprapatellar and infrapatellar intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13:146.
    1. Cazzato G, Saccomanno MF, Noia G, et al. . Intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures in the semi-extended position using a suprapatellar approach: a retrospective case series. Injury. 2018;49(suppl 3):S61–S64.
    1. Fu B. Locked META intramedullary nailing fixation for tibial fractures via a suprapatellar approach. Indian J Orthop. 2016;50:283–289.
    1. MacDonald DRW, Rehman H, Carnegie CA, et al. . The Aberdeen weight-bearing test (knee): a new objective test for anterior knee discomfort. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020;46:93–98.
    1. Sun Q, Nie X, Gong J, et al. . The outcome comparison of the suprapatellar approach and infrapatellar approach for tibia intramedullary nailing. Int Orthop. 2016;40:2611–2617.
    1. Ozcan C, Turkmen I, Sokucu S. Comparison of three different approaches for anterior knee pain after tibia intramedullary nailing. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020;46:99–105.
    1. Isaac M, O'Toole RV, Udogwu U, et al. . Incidence of knee pain beyond 1 Year: suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach for intramedullary nailing of the tibia. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33:438–442.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
    1. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. . Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.
    1. Law M, Stewart D, Pollock N, et al. . Guidelines for critical review form- quantitative studies. Quant Rev Form Guidelines. 1998.
    1. Meinberg EG, Agel J, Roberts CS, et al. . Fracture and dislocation classification compendium-2018. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(suppl 1):S1–S170.
    1. Ryan SP, Steen B, Tornetta P, III. Semi-extended nailing of metaphyseal tibia fractures: alignment and incidence of postoperative knee pain. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:263–269.
    1. Hessmann MH, Buhl M, Finkemeier C, et al. . Suprapatellar nailing of fractures of the tibia. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2020.
    1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:97–132; quiz 133-134; discussion 196.
    1. Milner SA. A more accurate method of measurement of angulation after fractures of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:972–974.
    1. Vallier HA, Cureton BA, Patterson BM. Randomized, prospective comparison of plate versus intramedullary nail fixation for distal tibia shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:736–741.
    1. Bleeker NJ, Cain M, Rego M, et al. . Bilateral low-dose computed tomography assessment for post-operative rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures: reliability of a practical imaging technique. Injury. 2018;49:1895–1900.
    1. Cain ME, Hendrickx LAM, Bleeker NJ, et al. . Prevalence of rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures: can we reliably use the contralateral uninjured side as the reference standard? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102:582–591.
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. . The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
    1. Cui Y, Hua X, Schmidutz F, et al. . Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approaches in the treatment of tibia intramedullary nailing: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20:573.
    1. Leliveld MS, Verhofstad MH. Injury to the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve, a possible cause for anterior knee pain after tibial nailing? Injury. 2012;43:779–783.
    1. MacDonald DRW, Caba-Doussoux P, Carnegie CA, et al. . Tibial nailing using a suprapatellar rather than an infrapatellar approach significantly reduces anterior knee pain postoperatively: a multicentre clinical trial. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B:1138–1143.
    1. Weninger P, Schultz A, Traxler H, et al. . Anatomical assessment of the Hoffa fat pad during insertion of a tibial intramedullary nail—comparison of three surgical approaches. J Trauma. 2009;66:1140–1145.
    1. Chen CY, Lin KC, Yang SW, et al. . Influence of nail prominence and insertion point on anterior knee pain after tibial intramedullary nailing. Orthopedics. 2014;37:e221–225.
    1. Boerger TO, Patel G, Murphy JP. Is routine removal of intramedullary nails justified. Injury. 1999;30:79–81.
    1. Eastman JG, Tseng SS, Lee MA, et al. . The retropatellar portal as an alternative site for tibial nail insertion: a cadaveric study. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:659–664.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する