Which is superior in the treatment of AO Type 42A tibial shaft fracture? A comparison of talon intramedullary nailing and conventional locked intramedullary nailing

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorTekin, Sezgin Bahadir
dc.contributor.authorMert, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorBozgeyik, Bahri
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-07T13:32:30Z
dc.date.available2024-11-07T13:32:30Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentNiğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of conventional locked intramedullary nailing (IMN) and talon IMN in AO Type 42A tibial fractures.METHODS: A total of 93 patients with AO Type 42A fracture were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: Those treated with conventional IMN (Group 1), and those treated with talon distal locked nailing (Group 2). The patients were statistically compared in terms of age, sex, mechanism of injury, follow-up time, time to union, smoking status, presence of open fracture, presence of concomitant fibula fracture, development of malunion and nonunion, and the number of intraoperative fluoros -copy shots captured. All patients were evaluated with American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores for clinical outcomes.RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (68 men and 35 women) participated in the study. Group 1 consisted of 35 (71.4%) men and 14 (28.6%) women, a total of 49 patients, while Group 2 consisted of 33 (75%) men and 11 (25%) women, a total of 44 patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, mechanism of injury, follow-up times, smoking status, concomitant fibula fracture, presence of malunion, and presence of open fracture (p>0.05). However, there were significant differences between both groups in terms of time to union, nonunion rate, and the number of fluoroscopy shots captured (p<0.05). American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm score were analyzed and compared, no statistically differences were found (p=0.786 and p=0.764).CONCLUSION: Although talon IMN reduces radiation exposure, locked conventional IMN has lower nonunion rates and achieves union faster.
dc.identifier.doi10.14744/tjtes.2021.36779
dc.identifier.endpage1520
dc.identifier.issn1306-696X
dc.identifier.issn1307-7945
dc.identifier.issue10
dc.identifier.pmid36169461
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85127529537
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage1514
dc.identifier.trdizinid1136277
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2021.36779
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1136277
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11480/15455
dc.identifier.volume28
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000870202200022
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizin
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTurkish Assoc Trauma Emergency Surgery
dc.relation.ispartofUlusal Travma Ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi-Turkish Journal of Trauma & Emergency Surgery
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_20241106
dc.subjectDistal locking
dc.subjectfracture
dc.subjectscrew
dc.subjecttalon
dc.subjecttibia
dc.titleWhich is superior in the treatment of AO Type 42A tibial shaft fracture? A comparison of talon intramedullary nailing and conventional locked intramedullary nailing
dc.title.alternativeAO Type 42A tibia şaft kırıklarında hangisi daha üstün? Talonlu intrameduller çivi ile kilitli konvansiyonel intramedüller çivinin karşılaştırılması
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu