Unilateral versus bilateral external fixator in surgical treatment of distal tibial fracture

Abstract

Objective To compare unilateral and bilateral external fixators in the surgical treatment of fractures of distal tibia. Methods From August 2005 to February 2010, 38 patients with distal tibial fracture were treated surgically in our department. Of them, 23 (group A) were fixed with unilateral external fixator (16 males and 7 females with a mean age of 46. 5 years), and 15 (group B) fixed with bilateral external fixator (11 males and 4 females with a mean age of 49. 1 years) . All the patients were followed up periodically after operation. Time of fracture healing, complications, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores for the ankle were documented and analyzed statistically to compare the clinical outcomes of the 2 groups. Results The patients were followed up for 6 to 48 months (mean, 21 months).The mean time for clinical fracture union was 6. 8 ± 2. 0 months (3. S to 12. 0 months) for group A, and 5. 6 ± 1. 5 months (3 to 10 months) for group B. The complication rates during external fixation were 34. 8% (8/23) for group A and 40.0% (6/15) for group B. The AOFAS scores for functional recovery were 76. 7 ± 13. 5 for group A and 74. 4 ± 13. 6 for group B. Independent samples t test showed a significant difference ( P < 0. 05) between the 2 groups in time of clinical fracture union, but no significant difference (t = 2. 074, P = 0. 046) in complication rates and AOFAS scores. Conclusion Both unilateral and bilateral external fixators are effective for fixation of distal tibial fractures, but bilateral external fixators may be better in time of fracture healing. Key words: External fixators; Tibial fractures