• Simon Thwaites, John Abrahams, Dominic Thewlis, and Mark Rickman.
• Centre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. simon.thwaites@adelaide.edu.au.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Feb 1; 50 (1): 597059-70.

PurposeThis scoping review was conducted to summarise the outcome tools reported in the assessment of tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary (IM) nailing, with a key focus on knee pain and function, and performance-based outcomes.MethodsPubMed and Embase databases were searched on May 31, 2023. All study designs and populations were included, including ex vivo studies without fracture. Studies with only open or intra-articular fractures, or other fracture fixation, were excluded. Reported outcome tools and pertinent study characteristics were extracted and summarised.ResultsOf 488 articles identified, 179 met the inclusion criteria. For in vivo studies (n = 152), there were 13,705 fractures; the IM nailing approach not described for 30% of these. There were 133 unique patient outcomes, with a binary assessment of knee pain (29% of studies) and Lysholm score (21%) most common. Only 10/152 (7%) in vivo studies included an objective, performance-based measure of knee function. Fracture union was most frequent (52%) of 81 different clinical outcomes. For ex vivo studies (n = 29), there were 408 tibias included, with nail insertion location most prevalent (66% of studies) of 34 reported outcomes.ConclusionThe heterogeneity of outcome tools reported limits comparison between studies and the most commonly reported patient outcomes may not be the most appropriate. Future studies should report the IM nailing approach and consider capturing both patient-reported and performance-based outcomes to help inform surgical decision making.© 2023. Crown.

15 keywords...

hide…