• Wang Cheng, Ying Li, and Wang Manyi.
• Traumatology Department, Peking University Fourth Clinical Medical College, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
• Int Orthop. 2011 May 1; 35 (5): 737-42.

AbstractThe aim of this study was to compare the results between two surgical options for distal tibia fracture, i.e. minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) vs. open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and explore the benefits and defects of these two techniques. Thirty cases of distal tibia fracture (15 pairs of ORIF and MIPO) were submitted for pair comparison with consistence of gender, age and AO fracture classification. Indexes for evaluation included operative time, blood loss, healing time, time of recovery to work, implant irritation symptoms, and union status. Mazur grading standard was introduced for functional evaluation. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 13.0 was used for analysis. No malunion occurred and one case of osteomyelitis developed in the ORIF group. In the ORIF group, ten cases were evaluated as excellent, three as good, one as fair and one as poor. In the MIPO group, ten cases were excellent and five good. Paired t-test found no significant differences between groups on the indexes for analysis. In conclusion, the MIPO technique is not distinctively superior to ORIF in treatment of distal tibia fracture.

29 keywords...

hide…