Is percutaneous plate fixation better than ORIF for distal tibial fractures

Abstract

Objective To compare the clinical results of minimally invasive percutancous plate os-teosynthesis (MIPPO) and open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) for treatment of distal tibial fractures. Methods From October 2006 to June 2007, 94 cases of closed distal tibial fracture with intact articular surface were treated by internal fixation with plates. Of them, 42 were treated with ORIF and 52 with MIPPO. We retrospectively analyzed their union time, malunion and complications. Results The average follow-up was 14.5 (8 to 24) months. In the ORIF group, 35 cases got union, 3 cases delayed union and 4 cases nonunion. The average time for union was 3.83 (3 to 8) months. There were no cases of malunion and 2 cases of superficial infection in this group. In the MIPPO group, 47 cases obtained union, 5 cases delayed union and none nonunion. The average time for union was 3.66(2 to 8) months. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in total union time or in the union time for Type AI, Type A2 and Type B fractures respectively. The union time for Type A3 fracture was longer in the MIPPO group than in the ORIF group, but the union time for Type C fracture in the MIPPO group was shorter than in the ORIF group. In the MIPPO group, external rotation occurred in 2 cases and posterior angnlation displacement in 3, and 8 cases com-plained of discomfort around the ankle which was relieved after removal of the plate. Conclusions Gen-erally speaking, there is no significant difference between ORIF and MIPPO in union time for distal tibial fractures. ORIF may be superior to MIPPO in treatment of Type A3 fracture, but inferior to MIPPO in treatment of Type C fracture. A high rate of delayed union may be expected in patients who have been treated with MIPPO and have had anteroposterior angnlation. Key words: Tibia; Fracture; Fracture fixation, internal