Study to prospectively evaluate reamed intramedually nails in patients with tibial fractures (S.P.R.I.N.T.): Study rationale and design

Table 1 Implant preference among surgeons (N = 444)

Type of Fracture	Type of Implant (%)
	External Fixator	Plate	IM Nail (Reamed)	IM Nail (Non-Reamed)
CLOSED FRACTURES
Closed Fractures (Low Energy) *	0.5	3.2	76.0	20.3
Closed Fractures (High Energy)	1.8+	2.1	60.4+	35.6+
Closed Fractures with Compartment Syndrome	12.2+	7.4+	34.9+	45.5+
OPEN FRACTURES
Grade I Open Fractures	3.4	1.1	54.5	41.0
Grade II Open Fractures	11.1#	0.8	46.3#	41.8
Grade IIIa Open Fractures	30.6#	1.1	28.8#	39.6
Grade IIIb Open Fractures	50.5#	1.1	13.6#	34.8

* 0.8% respondents treated all injuries by non-operative methods. IM = intramedullary
+ significant difference when compared to responses for closed fractures (low energy)
# significant difference when compared to responses for Grade I open fractures (p < 0.01)
From: Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P 3rd, Hanson B, Weaver B, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. Surgeons' preferences for the operative treatment of fractures of the tibial shaft. An international survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:1746-52

ISSN: 1471-2474