Definitive treatment of open tibia fractures| Lo Scalpello - Journal

Abstract

In the last years significant progress has been achieved in the management of open tibial fractures and improving outcomes. However, these open fractures continue to remain one of the most challenging injuries to manage in orthopedic traumatology. This is primarily due to the relative paucity of soft tissues around the tibia. This kind of injury often requires combined treatment by both orthopedic and plastic surgeons. Stable fixation and early wound coverage are the basic principles in treatment of open fractures. The fix and flap technique suggests that open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and soft-tissue free-flap coverage should be performed during the same surgical operation within 72 hours, because the time interval between injury and definitive treatment seems to be a more important risk factor for infection. However, in most hospitals this interval is impossible to respect, demanding a close collaboration between orthopedic and plastic surgeon. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a realistic and practical algorithm to treat these complex injuries, even in those hospitals in which a well-defined Ortho-Plastic team is not present.

Introduction

Open fractures of the tibia are the most frequent exposed fractures of long bones with an annual incidence of 3.4 cases per 100,000 inhabitants; in 80% of cases, the medial and distal third of tibia are involved ¹. These fractures are mostly the result of high energy traumas, and represent a significant challenge for the orthopedic surgeon because in most cases they have extensive bone/soft tissue loss and lesions of neurovascular structures. The optimal treatment of these lesions is still debated, and the recent advent of the ortho-plastic surgical team has considerably changed management ^2-4. The aim of this paper is to define, schematically, what cases can be managed by definitive orthopedic fixation and when provisional fixation and plastic surgeon intervention is necessary considering the recent literature.

Classification of open fractures

Multiple classification systems have been prosed for open fractures ^5,6. However, these injuries are usually classified according to the system developed by Gustilo and Anderson and subsequently modified by Gustilo et al. ^7,8. This system, which was specifically intended for tibial fractures, has found widespread acceptance for most long-bone open fractures; it considers the energy of the trauma and the degree of soft-tissue injury and contamination, which have prognostic implications ^7,8 (Tab. I).

Although this classification system is associated with low interobserver reliability ^9,10 (average 60%), it remains the preferred system to categorize open fractures, since the fracture type correlates well with the risk of infection and other complications; for example, rates of infection have been reported to be 0 to 2% for type A and up to 25 to 50% for type III C (Tab. I). Furthermore, the surgeon must be aware that the risk of infections is also associated with patient characteristics and comorbidities (i.e., age > 80 years old, nicotine use, diabetes, malignant disease, pulmonary insufficiency etc.); indeed, in patients with three or more compromising factors, infection increase significantly ¹¹.

Treatment

Schematically, we can divide treatments in two groups considering Gustillo classification. The first group includes types I, II, and IIIA Gustillo fractures, and the second group types IIIB and IIIC fractures. This division considers the different problems that should be addressed. In latter group, primary soft tissue coverage is not possible and bone loss is usually present; in these cases, treatment is more complex requiring the intervention of plastic surgeons and more than one orthopedic procedure.

Gustillo type I, II, IIIa tibia fractures (adequate soft tissue coverage, no bone loss)

In these types of injuries, the immediate definitive fixation of the tibia is applicable in many cases, facilitating healing and functional recovery ^12,13.Differently, temporary fixation must be considered in three different situations: 1) for high-energy trauma with suffering of soft tissue especially in Gustillo type III A; 2) severely traumatized patients with associated vital lesions limiting surgical aggression; 3) in a precarious health context with limited technical means or massive casualty situations. These situations are part of damage orthopedics control (DCO) ^14,15. The ideal definitive osteosynthesis device (plate, intramedullary nail, external fixator circular or monolateral etc.) depends on: 1) degree of soft tissue damage (not always correlated with bone coverage; 2) fracture site (articular-extrarticular); 3) patients general conditions; 4) mechanism of injury; 5) surgeon’s experience.

Shaft fracture

Nowadays intramedullary nailing is the preferred technique. During the late 1980s, several studies demonstrated favorable outcomes with definitive external fixation ¹⁶. However, more recently, some studies have shown intra-medullary nailing to be preferable to external fixation. This technique is associated with a lower prevalence of malalignment, fewer subsequent procedures, and a lower rate of infection compared to external fixation ^17,18. Nailing also has advantages over external fixation: better clinical tolerance, easy access to soft tissue, better control of axes and rotation, and early mobilization and recovery ¹⁹. Studies comparing reamed and un-reamed nailing in patients with an open tibial fracture have proved inconclusive ²⁰. Differently, the use of antibiotic coated nails is recommended since a lower incidence of infection has been observed ²¹. Nailing after removal of the external fixator can be performed in 1 or 2 stages. The two stage procedure has the theoretical advantage of healing the skin at the sites of the fiches, but primary nailing without waiting also appears to be a safe procedure. The two stage procedure is recommended when the temporary fixator is maintained for more 28 days. An interval of 9 days seems to be recommended in secondary internal nailing ²².

Articular fracture

Operative treatments include internal and external fixation modalities. One stage ORIF is possible in case of a minimal level of soft tissue involvement. However, staged surgical reconstruction remains the standard treatment protocol at most trauma centers. This includes application of a temporary spanning external fixator for approximately one to three weeks, followed by open reduction and internal fixation once the surrounding soft tissues are amendable ²³. A temporary spanning external fixator permits a CT scan to better characterize the articular surface fracture patterns. Advanced imaging can help guide the surgeon on the incisional approach and the selection and positioning of the implants ²⁴. Studies have demonstrated a lower incidence of wound complications and deep infections with this staged protocol compared to early open reduction internal fixation ²⁵.

External fixation as definitive treatment

Several techniques of external fixation are described in the literature. These include simple ankle spanning or ankle sparing bridging frames, circular frames, and hybrid frames ²⁶. In ankle spanning systems, the functional outcome was also reported to be significantly poorer in comparison to ankle sparing systems ²⁷.

The use of external fixators in definitive management is no longer a mainstay in management. A meta-analysis comparing the management of open tibial fractures showed no difference in the rate of nonunion and infection with external fixation compared with internal fixation methods. However, there were significant differences in the rates of malunion and need for further surgery, supporting the use of internal fixation as definitive treatment ^28,29. Nowadays, external fixation methods for a primary and definitive treatment are mainly indicated in tibial pilon fractures, where the risk for severe complications due to a poor soft tissue envelope, grade III open fractures or severe comorbidities of the patients is very high ³⁰.

Definitive external fixation methods can also be combined with limited open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or minimally invasive techniques, for example percutaneous K- wire or lag-screw constructs, to better reduce the articular surface ³¹.

Open reduction and internal fixation

Nowadays a staged protocol is the main choice for ORIF in the treatment of exposed articular tibial fractures. The main goals are anatomical reconstruction of the articular surface and the restoration of the correct rotational alignment to achieve best functional results ²³. The state of the soft tissue dictates timing of surgery. “Wrinkling of the skin” seems to be the best indicator for operability, which in most cases will occur 10-14-20 days after the trauma. Multiple studies have compared the outcomes of ORIF and external fixation. Outcomes seem to be similar in terms of early complications, but a significantly higher rate of superficial infection mostly due to pin tract infections has been noted. However, the rate of deep infections did not vary significantly in ORIF and external fixation. The rate of mal union was significantly higher with external fixation than with ORIF, which is most likely due to the limited possibility of anatomical reduction with external fixation. Additionally, the functional outcome seems to be worse with external fixation than with ORIF, which was also due to the reduced possibility of anatomical reconstruction of the articular surface ^32-34.

Gustillo type IIIb IIIc tibia fractures (primary coverage not possible, bone loss)

These fractures are potentially devastating injuries; they often present with extensive soft-tissue damage, bone loss and vascular injuries. A delay in wound coverage is associated with an increased rate of infection and surgical failure ³⁵. For proper management of these traumas, a multidisciplinary approach (orthopedic/plastic/vascular) is necessary ³⁶. In recent years, the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic surgeons (BAPRAs) have introduced protocols on how one may approach open traumatic injuries ³⁶. BOA/BAPRAs guidance recommends that wound cover be established within 72 hours of injury and not delayed beyond seven days. The two procedures, orthopedic fixation and plastic coverage, the so-called ‘fix and flap approach’, should be performed at the same theatre setting ³⁶. This approach is considered optimal in managing lower extremity injuries and limiting complications associated with delayed repair³⁶. Indeed, according to Gopal et al., the “fix and flap” technique has shown that early wound closure and early fixation reduces infection rates and promotes fracture healing and early restoration of function ^37,38. Unfortunately, although the most recent studies showed that the Ortho-Plastic approach is better than the orthopedic one alone, many hospitals do not have the benefit of a combined emergency team. Furthermore, the cooperation between orthopedic and plastic surgeons is not always easy, even when both teams are available in the same center, due to the lack of communication and the absence of standard guidelines for the management of complex wounds; for these reasons, 7 days is a more realistic time than 72 hours ³⁹. Indeed, it is recommended that definitive soft tissue reconstruction be undertaken within the first 7 days after the injury, and if this window of opportunity for conversion is missed, definitive management with modern multiplanar/circular external fixators should be considered ^36-39.

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) allows maintaining a clean and well vascularized wound floor while waiting for the plastic surgeon intervention ⁴⁰. Furthermore, its use after debridement may allow for flap repair beyond 72 hours without an increase in the infection rate and may reduce flap necrosis ⁴⁰.

In tibial shaft fractures, without bone loss, nailing is preferred technique ^17-19. Differently, circular external fixation is a better choice if a significant amount of bone loss is present and the articular surface is involved^17-19.

Recently, Tetsworth et al. proposed a new classification system of bone defects ⁴¹. These can be broadly classified into one of three categories and then further classified into one of three subcategories for a total of nine possible combinations. In keeping with the existing alpha numeric scheme, categories are appended the suffix “D” followed by a number (1-3), and the three subcategories are then designated the letters A-C (Tab. II).

A critical bone defect (D3) should be always treated; there are many techniques available to treat these complex injuries, i.e., autologous bone grafting, induced membrane technique, distraction osteogenesis, acute limb shortening and lengthening, and vascularized fibular allograft. The most appropriate treatment must be carefully thought out on a case-by-case basis. Distraction osteogenesis via the use of an external fixator appears to be the most popular technique. The main advantages of distraction osteogenesis are its reliability, ability to bear weight during reconstruction, and, most importantly, the absence of limits with regards to size of the defect that can be reconstructed. The disadvantages, however, are the length of time required to achieve consolidation (an average of 10-12 months for a defect of 10 cm in size) and the resultant physical and psychological burden on the patient with prolonged transports ⁴².

In a recent long-term study looking at the Ilizarov technique the rate of union was 91.2% with, however, a high re-operation rate ⁴².

The Ganga Hospital Open Injury Score (GHOIS) was proposed in 2004 and is designed to specifically address the outcome in IIIb injuries of the tibia without a vascular deficit ⁴³. It evaluates the severity of injury to the three components of the limb-skin, bone and musculotendinous structures separately on a grade from 0 to 5. Seven comorbid factors which influence the treatment, and the outcome are included in the score with two points each (Tab. III).

The total score was shown to predict salvage when the value was 14 or less; amputation when the score was 17 and more. A gray zone of 15 and 16 is provided where decision making should be made on a case-to-case basis.

Conclusions

Open fractures represent a challenge to even the most experienced orthopedic surgeons. The available evidence supports the current trend towards earlier coverage and closure of open fracture wounds. The early closure of open fractures grades I, II, IIIa is recommended with the obvious exception of wounds that are grossly contaminated. Grades IIIb and IIIc injuries should be managed by specialist teams and the wound should be closed at the earliest possible time. Figure 1 shows a realistic and schematic algorithm to treat these complex injuries even in those hospitals in which a well-defined Ortho-Plastic team is not present.

Conflict of interest stament

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author contributions

All authors conceived, designed and wrote the manuscript.

Ethical consideration

Not applicable.

Figures and tables

Figure 1.Practical algorithm to treat open tibia fractures.

References

1. Court-Brown CM, Bugler KE, Clement ND. The epidemiology of open fractures in adults. A 15-year review. Injury. 2012; 43:891-897. DOI
2. Boriani F, UlHaq A, Baldini T. Orthoplastic surgical collaboration is required to optimise the treatment of severe limb injuries: a multi-centre, prospective cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2017; 70:715-722. DOI
3. Sommar P, Granberg Y, Halle M. Effects of a formalized collaboration between plastic and orthopedic surgeons in severe extremity trauma patients; a retrospective study. J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2015; 9:3. DOI
4. Toia F, Zabbia G, Scirpo R. Microsurgery and external fixation in orthoplastic reconstruction of tibial injuries. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2019; 51:484-491. DOI
5. Orthopaedic trauma association: open Fracture study group. A new classification scheme for open fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2010; 24:457-464. DOI
6. Elniel AR, Giannoudis PV. Open fractures of the lower extremity: current management and clinical outcomes. EFORT Open Rev. 2018; 3:316-325. DOI
7. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976; 58:453-458.
8. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma. 1984; 24:742-746.
9. Brumback RJ, Jones AL. Interobserver agreement in the classification of open fractures of the tibia. The results of a survey of two hundred and forty-five orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994; 76:1162-1166. DOI
10. Horn BD, Rettig ME. Interobserver reliability in the Gustilo and Anderson classification of open fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1993; 7:357-360. DOI
11. Bowen TR, Widmaier JC. Host classification predicts infection after open fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 433:205-211. DOI
12. Hofmann A, Dietz SO, Pairon P. The role of intramedullary nailing in treatment of open fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015; 41:39-47. DOI
13. Foote CJ, Guyatt GH, Vignesh KN. Which surgical treatment for open tibial shaft fractures results in the fewest re-operations? A network meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473:2179-2192. DOI
14. Rigal S, Mathieu L, de l’Escalopier N. Temporary fixation of limbs and pelvis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018; 104:S81-S88. DOI
15. Mathieu L, Bazile F, Barthélémy R. Damage control orthopaedics in the context of battlefield injuries: the use of temporary external fixation on combat trauma soldiers. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011; 97:852-859. DOI
16. Bach AW, Hansen ST. Plates versus external fixation in severe open tibial shaft fractures. A randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; 241:89-94.
17. Henley MB, Chapman JR, Agel J. Treatment of type II, IIIA, and IIIB open fractures of the tibial shaft: a prospective comparison of unreamed interlocking intramedullary nails and half-pin external fixators. J Orthop Trauma. 1998; 12:1-7. DOI
18. Schandelmaier P, Krettek C, Rudolf J, Tscherne H. Outcome of tibial shaft fractures with severe soft tissue injury treated by unreamed nailing versus external fixation. J Trauma. 1995; 39:707-711. DOI
19. Tornetta P, Bergman M, Watnik N. Treatment of grade-IIIb open tibial fractures. A prospective randomised comparison of external fixation and non-reamed locked nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994; 76:13-19.
20. Forster MC, Bruce AS, Aster AS. Should the tibia be reamed when nailing?. Injury. 2005; 36:439-444. DOI
21. Franz D, Raschke M, Giannoudis PV. Use of antibiotic coated intramedullary nails in open tibia fractures: a European medical resource use and cost-effectiveness analysis. Injury. 2021; 52:1951-1958. DOI
22. Roussignol X, Sigonneya G, Potage D. Secondary nailing after external fixation for tibial shaft fracture: risk factors for union and infection. A 55-case series. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015; 101:89-92. DOI
23. Zelle BA, Dang KH, Ornell SS. High-energy tibial pilon fractures: an instructional review. Int Orthop. 2019; 43:1939-1950. DOI
24. Harrison WD, Fortuin F, Durand-Hill M. Temporary circular external fixation for spanning the traumatised ankle joint: a cohort comparison study. Injury. 2022; 53:3525-3529. DOI
25. Sirkin M, Sanders R, Di Pasquale T. A staged protocol for soft tissue management in the treatment of complex pilon fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1999; 13:78-84. DOI
26. Jacob N, Amin A, Giotakis N. Management of high-energy tibial pilon fractures. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2015; 10:137-147. DOI
27. Endres T, Grass R, Biewener A. Advantages of minimally invasive reposition, retention, and Ilizarov-(hybrid) fixation for pilon-tibial-fractures fractures with particular emphasis on C2/C3 fractures. Unfallchirurg. 2004; 107:273-284. DOI
28. Gristina AG, Costerton JW. Bacterial adherence to biomaterials and tissue. The significanceof its role in clinical sepsis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985; 67A:264-273.
29. Giotakis N, Narayan B. Stability with unilateral external fixation in the tibia. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2007; 2:13-20. DOI
30. Quinnan SM. Definitive management of distal tibia and simple plafond fractures with circular external fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2016; 30:S26-S32. DOI
31. Sun DD, Lv D, Zhou K. External fixator combined with three different fixation methods of fibula for treatment of extra-articular open fractures of distal tibia and fibula: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22:1. DOI
32. Harris AM, Patterson BM, Sontich JK. Results and outcomes after operative treatment of high-energy tibial plafond fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27:256-265. DOI
33. Pugh KJ, Wolinsky PR, McAndrew MP. Tibial pilon fractures: a comparison of treatment methods. J Trauma. 1999; 47:937-941. DOI
34. Richards JE, Magill M, Tressler MA. External fixation versus ORIF for distal intra-articular tibia fractures. Orthopedics. 2012; 35:E862-E867. DOI
35. Melvin JS, Dombroski DG, Torbert JT. Open tibial shaft fractures: II. Definitive management and limb salvage. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010; 18:108-117. DOI
36. Nanchahal J, Nayagam S, Khan U. Standards for the management of open fractures of the lower limb. British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons: London; 2009.
37. Gopal S, Majumder S, Batchelor AG. Fix and flap: the radical orthopaedic and plastic treatment of severe open fractures of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000; 82:959-966. DOI
38. Maruccia M, Elia R, Caizzi G. Free flap and kickstand external fixator in foot and ankle soft tissue reconstruction. The versatility of a microsurgical-friendly application of an orthopedic device. Injury. 2018; 49:S105-S109. DOI
39. Pari C, Raggini F, Paderni S. One-stage procedure for open tibial fractures: feasible without orthoplastic surgery?. Acta Biomed. 2021; 92:E2021018. DOI
40. Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Newton K, Dumville JC. Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 2018:CD012522. DOI
41. Tetsworth KD, Burnand HG, Hohmann E. Classification of bone defects: an extension of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Open Fracture Classification. J Orthop Trauma. 2021; 35:71-76. DOI
42. Lowenberg DW, Buntic RF, Buncke GM. Long-term results and costs of muscle flap coverage with Ilizarov bone transport in lower limb salvage. J Orthop Trauma. 2013; 27:576-581. DOI
43. Rajasekaran S, Sabapathy SR, Dheenadhayalanet J. Ganga hospital open injury score in management of open injuries. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015; 41:3-15. DOI