Suprapatellar tibial fracture nailing is associated with lower rate for acute compartment syndrome and the need for fasciotomy compared with the infrapatellar approach.

BACKGROUND: Intramedullary tibial nailing (IMN) is the gold standard for stabilizing tibial shaft fractures. IMN can be performed through an infra- or suprapatellar approach. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the rate of fasciotomies for acute compartment syndrome between infra- and suprapatellar approaches. METHODS: A total of 614 consecutive patients who were treated with IMN for tibial fracture between October 2007 and February 2020 were included in the study. The approach used for IMN was determined by the operating surgeon. Infrapatellar IMN was performed with the knee in deep flexion position, with or without calcaneal traction. Suprapatellar IMN was performed in straight or semiflexed position. The diagnosis of compartment syndrome was based on clinical analysis, but for some patients, a continuous compartment pressure measurement was used. The primary outcome was the rate of peri- and postoperative compartment syndrome treated with fasciotomies. RESULTS: The study sample included 513 patients treated with infrapatellar IMN and 101 patients treated with suprapatellar IMN technique. The mean age of the patients was 44.7 years (infrapatellar technique) and 48.4 years (suprapatellar technique). High energy trauma was seen in 138 (27%) patients treated with infrapatellar technique and in 39 (39%) patients treated with suprapatellar technique. In the suprapatellar group (n = 101), there were no cases of peri- or postoperative compartment syndrome treated with fasciotomies. In the infrapatellar group (n = 513), the need for fasciotomies was stated in 67 patients, 31 patients (6.0%) perioperatively and in 36 patients (7.0%) postoperatively. The rate of fasciotomies (0/101 versus 67/513 cases) differed significantly (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the fracture morphology or patient demographics between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The suprapatellar technique is recommended over the infrapatellar approach in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. The rate of peri- and postoperative compartment syndrome and the need for fasciotomies was significantly lower with the suprapatellar technique. The major cause of increased rate of peri- or postoperative acute compartment syndrome with infrapatellar IMN technique is presumably associated with the positioning of the patient during the operation.

Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Injury. Location-Based Rate of Recurrent Patellar Dislocation After Non-Operative Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: The role of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) as a patellofemoral joint stabilizing structure is undisputable. After traumatic patellar dislocation, MPFL injury, together with bone edema in the medial patellar facet and lateral femoral condyle, is a pathognomonic finding in magnetic resonance imagine. MPFL injury in the femoral insertion has been reported to most likely predict recurrent dislocations. The objective of this study was to detect if any MPFL injury location predicts the earliest onset of the patellar re-dislocation. METHODS: In total, 64 eligible patients with a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation were recruited to the trial. The diagnosis was confirmed within three weeks with 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The location of the MPFL injury in MRI was localized at the patellar insertion, midsubstance area, femoral insertion, or a combination of these. During the three-year follow-up period, patellar re-dislocations, range of motion, quadriceps muscle atrophy, and daily symptoms were determined. All the patients were treated non-operatively. RESULTS: Out of 64 patients, 33 (51.6%) had at least one episode of patellar re-dislocation. Re-dislocations occurred in 8 out of 25 (32.0%) patients with the main injury at the femoral insertion, 5 out of 15 (33.3%) patients with the main injury at the midsubstance area, and 10 out of 24 (41.7%) patients with the main injury at the patellar insertion during the 36 months follow-up (p=0.758). According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, the location of MPFL injury did not have statistically significant effect on timing of re-dislocations. At 36 months, survival of patients with MPFL injury at the patellar insertion was 70.8%, which was not statistically significantly different than the survival in patients with injury at the femoral insertion (88.0%) or at the midsubstance area (93.3%). No differences between single and multiple MPFL injuries were found. At 4 weeks, range of motion was more restricted in patients with MPFL injury at the femoral insertion (93.4° vs. 108.0° for injury at the midsubtance area and 107.7° at the patellar insertion). CONCLUSION: The location of MPFL injury did not have statistically significant effect on timing or rate of re-dislocations. The MPFL injury at the femoral insertion predicts decreased ROM of the knee and increased quadriceps muscle atrophy during the first three months after sustaining injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Patella-Stabilizing, Motion-Restricting Knee Brace Versus a Neoprene Nonhinged Knee Brace After a First-Time Traumatic Patellar Dislocation.

BACKGROUND: A traumatic lateral patellar dislocation is a common injury in adolescents and young adults. The majority of first-time dislocations can be treated nonoperatively. Various types of knee braces are used for nonoperative treatment, but evidence on the most preferable bracing method is lacking. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of a patella-stabilizing, motion-restricting knee brace versus a neoprene nonhinged knee brace for the treatment of a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation at 3 years of follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 101 skeletally mature patients with a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation were enrolled in the study. After exclusion criteria were applied, 79 patients with a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation were randomized and allocated into 2 study groups: group A, with a patella-stabilizing, motion-restricting knee brace (hinged to allow knee range of motion [ROM] of 0°-30°) and group B, with a neoprene nonhinged knee brace (not restricting any knee motion). Both groups received similar physical therapy instructions and were advised to use the brace continuously for 4 weeks. Overall, 64 patients completed the trial. RESULTS: The redislocation rate in group A was 34.4% (11/32) and in group B it was 37.5% (12/32) (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -26.6% to 20.3%]; P = .794). Patients in group A had less knee ROM than those in group B at 4 weeks (90° vs 115°, respectively; P < .001) and 3 months (125° vs 133°, respectively; P = .028). Patients in group A had more quadriceps muscle atrophy than patients in group B at 4 weeks (24/32 vs 16/32, respectively; P = .048) and 3 months. At 6 months, patients in group B reported better functional outcomes than patients in group A (Kujala score mean difference, 4.6; P = .012), although no clinically relevant difference was found at 3 years. CONCLUSION: The use of a patella-stabilizing, motion-restricting knee brace for 4 weeks after a first-time traumatic patellar dislocation did not result in a statistically significant reduction in redislocations versus a neoprene nonhinged knee brace, although this trial was underpowered to detect more modest differences. Knee immobilization was associated with quadriceps muscle atrophy, less knee ROM, and worse functional outcomes in the first 6 months after the injury. REGISTRATION: NCT01344915 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).