Is talon tibial intramedullary nailing clinically superior compared to conventional locked nailing?

ArticleAçık Erişim

Özet

Objectives: This study aims to compare the results of talon tibial intramedullary (IM) nailing with the results of conventional distal locked tibial IM nailing. Patients and methods: The study included 60 patients (37 males, 23 females; mean age 42.2 years; range 18 to 92 years) who underwent tibial IM nailing with the diagnosis of unilateral, closed or open (Gustilo-Anderson type 1) tibial diaphyseal fracture (Orthopaedic Trauma Association 42) between January 2013 and January 2016. Patients were separated into two groups as talon tibial IM nailing group (group 1, n=30) and distal locked tibial IM nailing group (group 2, n=30). All patients' operative and total radiation exposure times were recorded. At last control, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores were evaluated for clinical outcomes. All complications were recorded. Results: Mean operative time was 43.8 minutes in group 1 and 50.2 minutes in group 2. Mean radiation exposure time in group 1 was 5.4 minutes, which was three times shorter than the time of group 2, which was 17.5 minutes. Mean time until union was 16.9 weeks in group 1 and 12.2 weeks in group 2. Statistically significant differences were present between two groups in operative, radiation exposure time and time until union (p=0.019, p=0.001, p=0.001, respectively). When American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores were compared, there were no statistically significant differences (p=0.951 and p=0.896). Conclusion: Talon tibial IM nailing is an easier and safer alternative to conventional distal locked tibial IM nailing with shorter operative and radiation exposure times. However, it should be kept in mind that the time until radiographic union may be longer compared to conventional tibial IM nailing.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/14768Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2017.55349Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorÇamurcu, Yalkin
dc.contributor.authorSofu, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorIssin, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorKoçkara, Nizamettin
dc.contributor.authorGenç, Erdinç
dc.contributor.authorÇetinkaya, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-18T20:29:34.353075825Z
dc.date.available2026-10-18T20:29:34.353075825Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study aims to compare the results of talon tibial intramedullary (IM) nailing with the results of conventional distal locked tibial IM nailing. Patients and methods: The study included 60 patients (37 males, 23 females; mean age 42.2 years; range 18 to 92 years) who underwent tibial IM nailing with the diagnosis of unilateral, closed or open (Gustilo-Anderson type 1) tibial diaphyseal fracture (Orthopaedic Trauma Association 42) between January 2013 and January 2016. Patients were separated into two groups as talon tibial IM nailing group (group 1, n=30) and distal locked tibial IM nailing group (group 2, n=30). All patients' operative and total radiation exposure times were recorded. At last control, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores were evaluated for clinical outcomes. All complications were recorded. Results: Mean operative time was 43.8 minutes in group 1 and 50.2 minutes in group 2. Mean radiation exposure time in group 1 was 5.4 minutes, which was three times shorter than the time of group 2, which was 17.5 minutes. Mean time until union was 16.9 weeks in group 1 and 12.2 weeks in group 2. Statistically significant differences were present between two groups in operative, radiation exposure time and time until union (p=0.019, p=0.001, p=0.001, respectively). When American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society and Tegner Lysholm scores were compared, there were no statistically significant differences (p=0.951 and p=0.896). Conclusion: Talon tibial IM nailing is an easier and safer alternative to conventional distal locked tibial IM nailing with shorter operative and radiation exposure times. However, it should be kept in mind that the time until radiographic union may be longer compared to conventional tibial IM nailing.
dc.identifier.doi10.5606/ehc.2017.55349
dc.identifier.eissn1309-0313
dc.identifier.endpage157
dc.identifier.issn1305-8282
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pmid29125812
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85034044047
dc.identifier.startpage152
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/14768
dc.identifier.volume28
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000415126000003
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTurkish Joint Diseases Foundation
dc.relation.ispartofEklem Hastaliklari ve Cerrahisi
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectDistal locking
dc.subjectFracture healing
dc.subjectIntramedullary nailing
dc.subjectRadiation dosage
dc.subjectTalon
dc.subjectTibial fracture
dc.subjectAdolescent
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectBone Nails
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectFracture Fixation, Intramedullary
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLysholm Knee Score
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectOperative Time
dc.subjectTibial Fractures
dc.subjectYoung Adult
dc.subjectbone nail
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectLysholm score
dc.subjectoperation duration
dc.subjecttibia fracture
dc.subjectvery elderly
dc.titleIs talon tibial intramedullary nailing clinically superior compared to conventional locked nailing?
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.scopus8
rdl.citation.wos8
rdl.departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Medical Faculty of Erzincan University, 24100 Erzincan, Turkey. yalkin.camurcu@gmail.com.
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.source.indexPUBMED
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)