Advertisement

Butterfly fragments in diaphyseal tibial fractures heal unpredictably: Should we be adopting other strategies for these high risk fractures?

Published:December 24, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.12.024

      ABSTRACT

      Introduction

      The natural history of diaphyseal tibial butterfly fragments is poorly documented. Numerous studies have analyzed risk factors for nonunions in the tibial shaft with known factors including Gustilo classification, ASA class, and cortical contact. However, the healing potential and ideal management of nonsegmental butterfly fragments in this setting remains unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the nonunion rate of diaphyseal tibial fractures with a butterfly fragment.

      Methods

      A performed a retrospective review of patients at a single academic Level 1 Trauma Center from 2000-2020 who underwent intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures. Those with non-segmental butterfly fragments (OTA/AO: 42-B) and minimum 12 month follow up were included. Morphologic measurements of butterfly fragments were performed to measure location, size, and displacement, and mRust scores at final follow up were calculated. Outcome measures were surgery to promote union, and mRust scores.

      Results

      A total of 99 patients were included with 21 patients requiring revision surgery to promote union. Thirty six patients had open fractures and 77% of patients were male with a mean age of 34 (range: 12-80). Average follow up was 19 months (3 months – 12 years). The most common location of the butterfly fragment was the anterior cortex (42%), with a mean length of 7.8cm (SD: 3.3) and width of 1.8cm (SD: 0.5cm). At final follow-up 37% of fractures had persistent lucency without callus at the site of the butterfly while only 31% of fractures had remodeled cortex. Average time to complete healing was 13.3 months. Open fractures with butterfly fragments were more likely to go on to nonunion than closed (44% vs 9.2%, p=<0.001). The length of the butterfly fragment was not different between the union and nonunion groups (7.7 vs 7.5, P=0.42).

      Conclusions

      Open tibial shaft fractures with a butterfly fragment have a high risk of nonunion. Further research may seek to determine if adjunct treatment of butterfly fragments (ie inter-fragmentary compression) in the acute setting could improve healing rates.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Injury
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Praemer A
        • Furner S
        • Rice DP.
        Musculoskeletal conditions in the United States.
        Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1999;
        • Audigé L
        • Griffin D
        • Bhandari M
        • Kellam J
        • Rüedi TP.
        Path analysis of factors for delayed healing and nonunion in 416 operatively treated tibial shaft fractures.
        Clin Orthop. 2005; https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000163836.66906.74
        • Dailey HL
        • Wu KA
        • Wu PS
        • McQueen MM
        • Court-Brown CM
        Tibial fracture nonunion and time to healing after reamed intramedullary nailing: risk factors based on a single-center review of 1003 patients.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001173
        • Gaston P
        • Will E
        • Elton RA
        • McQueen MM
        • Court-Brown CM
        Fractures of the tibia. Can their outcome be predicted?.
        J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B. 1999; https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.81B1.8958
        • O'Halloran K
        • Coale M
        • Costales T
        • Zerhusen T
        • Castillo RC
        • Nascone JW
        • et al.
        Will my tibial fracture heal? Predicting nonunion at the time of definitive fixation based on commonly available variables.
        Clin Orthop. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4821-4
        • Bhandari M
        • Tornetta P
        • Sprague S
        • Najibi S
        • Petrisor B
        • Griffith L
        • et al.
        Predictors of reoperation following operative management of fractures of the tibial shaft.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2003; https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200305000-00006
        • Johner R
        • Stäubli HU
        • Gunst M
        • Cordey J
        The point of view of the clinician: a prospective study of the mechanism of accidents and the morphology of tibial and fibular shaft fractures.
        Injury. 2000; https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(00)80031-5
        • Kellam JF
        • Meinberg EG
        • Agel J
        • Karam MD
        • Roberts CS.
        Introduction.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0000000000001063
        • Kooistra BW
        • Dijkman BG
        • Busse JW
        • Sprague S
        • Schemitsch EH
        • Bhandari M.
        The radiographic union scale in tibial fractures: reliability and validity.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2010; https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181ca3fd1
        • Whelan DB
        • Bhandari M
        • Stephen D
        • Kreder H
        • Mckee MD
        • Zdero R
        • et al.
        Development of the radiographic union score for tibial fractures for the assessment of tibial fracture healing after intramedullary fixation.
        J Trauma - Inj Infect Crit Care. 2010; https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a7c16d
        • Bengnér U
        • Ekbom T
        • Johnell O
        • Nilsson BE.
        Incidence of femoral and tibial shaft fractures. Epidemiology 1950-1983 in Malmö, Sweden.
        Acta Orthop Scand. 1990; 61: 251-254https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679008993511
        • Copuroglu C
        • Calori GM
        • Giannoudis PV.
        Fracture non-union: who is at risk?.
        Injury. 2013; 44: 1379-1382https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.08.003
        • Fong K
        • Truong V
        • Foote CJ
        • Petrisor B
        • Williams D
        • Ristevski B
        • et al.
        Predictors of nonunion and reoperation in patients with fractures of the tibia: an observational study.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; 14: 103https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-103
        • Drosos GI
        • Bishay M
        • Karnezis IA
        • Alegakis AK.
        Factors affecting fracture healing after intramedullary nailing of the tibial diaphysis for closed and grade I open fractures.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88: 227-231https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.16456
        • Lack WD
        • Starman JS
        • Seymour R
        • Bosse M
        • Karunakar M
        • Sims S
        • et al.
        Any cortical bridging predicts healing of tibial shaft fractures.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: 1066-1072https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00385
        • Schemitsch EH
        • Bhandari M
        • Guyatt G
        • Sanders DW
        • Swiontkowski M
        • Tornetta P
        • et al.
        Prognostic factors for predicting outcomes after intramedullary nailing of the tibia.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 1786-1793https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01418
        • Wang C
        • Chen E
        • Ye C
        • Pan Z.
        Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach for tibia intramedullary nailing: a meta-analysis.
        Int J Surg Lond Engl. 2018; 51: 133-139https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.026
        • Al-Azzawi M
        • Davenport D
        • Shah Z
        • Khakha R
        • Afsharpad A.
        Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar nailing for tibial shaft fractures: a comparison of surgical and clinical outcomes between two approaches.
        J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021; 17: 1-4https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.01.009
        • Tian R
        • Zheng F
        • Zhao W
        • Zhang Y
        • Yuan J
        • Zhang B
        • et al.
        Prevalence and influencing factors of nonunion in patients with tibial fracture: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Orthop Surg. 2020; 15: 377https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01904-2
        • Zura R
        • Xiong Z
        • Einhorn T
        • Watson JT
        • Ostrum RF
        • Prayson MJ
        • et al.
        Epidemiology of fracture nonunion in 18 human bones.
        JAMA Surg. 2016; 151e162775https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2775
        • Antonova E
        • Le TK
        • Burge R
        • Mershon J.
        Tibia shaft fractures: costly burden of nonunions.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-42