16 October 2023: Clinical Research
Comparative Study of Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) and Intramedullary Nailing (IMN) for Treating Extraarticular Distal Tibial Fractures: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes
Oğuz Kaya 1ABC , Hacı Bayram Tosun 1AC , Hüseyin Kürüm 2DE , Sancar Serbest 3CD* , Abuzer Uludağ 4BF , Orhan Ayas 1BCGDOI: 10.12659/MSM.942154
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e942154
Table 2 Comparison of the results of the interlocking intramedullary nailing (IMN) and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) treatment methods.
| Characteristics | IMN | Plate | Total | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mdn (IQR)# | 2 (1) | 1.5 (1.8) | 2 (2) | 0.069 | |
| 55 (20) | 60 (18.75) | 60 (20) | 0.735 | ||
| 5 (2) | 5 (5) | 5 (3) | * | ||
| 12 (7) | 12 (2) | 12 (2) | 0.743 | ||
| 16 (7) | 12 (7.5) | 14 (8) | 0.104 | ||
| 60 (15) | 87.5 (18.75) | 75 (30) | * | ||
| 30 (24) | 47.5 (15) | 45 (20) | * | ||
| Complications | 0.908 | ||||
| Iatrogenic tibia fractures | n (%) | 2 (2.9) | – | 2 (2.9) | |
| Superficial infection | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | 4 (5.8) | ||
| Deep infection | – | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | ||
| Cutaneous necrosis | – | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | ||
| Sudeck Atrophy | 2 (2.9) | 4 (5.8) | 6 (8.7) | ||
| Anterior knee pain | 2 (2.9) | – | 2 (2.9) | ||
| n (%) | 7 (10.1) | 21 (30.4) | 28 (40.5) | 0.584 | |
| – | 3 (4.3) | 3 (4.3) | 0.114 | ||
| ** | 0.614 | ||||
| Valgus | n (%) | 3 (4.3) | 1 (1.4) | 4 (5.7) | |
| Recurvatum | 1 (1.4) | – | 1 (1.4) | ||
| Varus+procurvatum | 1 (1.4) | – | 1 (1.4) | ||
| 0.614 | |||||
| Valgus | n (%) | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | 4 (5.8) | |
| Valgus+procurvatum | 1 (1.4) | – | 1 (1.4) | ||
| Valgus+recurvatum | – | 3 (4.3) | 3 (4.3) | ||
| * | |||||
| Anatomic | n (%) | 33 (47.8) | 23 (33.3) | 56 (81.1) | |
| Good | 2 (2.9) | 4 (5.8) | 6 (8.7) | ||
| Fair | – | 5 (7.2) | 5 (7.2) | ||
| Poor | – | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | ||
| Score | 95.8±5.0 | 91.9±14.3 | 93,88±10.8 | * | |
| Excellent (>89) | n (%) | 28 (40.6) | 25 (36.2) | 53 (76.8) | |
| Good (80–89) | 7 (10.1) | 2 (2.9) | 9 (13.0) | ||
| Acceptable (70–79) | – | 5 (7.2) | 5 (7.2) | ||
| Bad ( | – | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | ||
| * | |||||
| Excellent | n (%) | 33 (47.8) | 23 (33.3) | 56 (81.1) | |
| Good | 2 (2.9) | 4 (5.8) | 6 (8.7) | ||
| Fair | – | 5 (7.2) | 5 (7.2) | ||
| Poor | – | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.9) | ||
| 0.133 | |||||
| Excellent | n (%) | 25 (36.2) | 24 (34.8) | 49 (70.0) | |
| Good | 9 (13.0) | 4 (5.8) | 13 (18.8) | ||
| Fair | 1 (1.4) | 5 (7.2) | 6 (8.6) | ||
| Poor | – | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.4) | ||
| * Statistically significant, Mann-Whitney-U and Chi-Square Tests (p * Deformity ** Deformity >5° coronal plane and >10° in sagittal plane. # mdn(IQR): median (Interquartile Range). | |||||