Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation
1
Issued Date
2023-07-15
Resource Type
eISSN
1749799X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85164755642
Pubmed ID
37452380
Journal Title
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
Volume
18
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research Vol.18 No.1 (2023) , 298
Suggested Citation
Wongcharoenwatana J., Hoellwarth J.S., Greenstein M.D., Reif T.J., Fragomen A.T., Rozbruch S.R. Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation. Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research Vol.18 No.1 (2023) , 298. doi:10.1186/s13018-023-03771-z Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/88048
Title
Comparative fixation devices for preventing migration of the proximal tibiofibular joint during tibial lengthening: a tether versus screw fixation
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When lengthening the tibia segment using motorized internal lengthening nails (MILN), undesired distal migration of the proximal fibula segment is prevented by tibiofibular stabilization, traditionally using a screw. A tightened cortical suspensory fixation rope (tether) is an alternative option, but its appropriateness has never been studied. The primary outcome was comparing the amount of proximal fibular migration between patients who were stabilized with either a tether or a screw. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the effect of fibular migration on the clinical outcome between both groups. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent tibial lengthening with MILN between April 2016 and June 2022. Two cohorts were compared: 18 limbs with tether fixation versus 29 limbs with screw fixation. Data on the patient's age, sex, etiologies, and clinical outcomes were collected. Radiographic measurements included the lengthening distance and the amount of proximal fibular migration. RESULTS: In total, 47 limbs from 41 patients, with average age 35.01 ± 13.72 years old. There were 28 males (68.29%) and 13 females (31.71%). The tether group demonstrated a statistically significant greater distance of migration than the screw group (p < 0.001), with an average migration distance of 8.39 ± 5.09 mm and 2.59 ± 3.06 mm, respectively. No correlation was found between the amount of tibial lengthening and the distance of proximal fibular migration in both the tether group (p = 0.96) and the screw group (p = 0.32). There was no significant difference in the change of knee extension between both groups (p = 0.3), and no patients reported knee pain or tightness. CONCLUSION: A screw provides better resistance to proximal tibiofibular joint migration during MILN lengthening, but the difference appears clinically inconsequential. Either option appears suitable.