Skip to main content

Table 1 Implant preference among surgeons (N = 444)

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

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
  1. * 0.8% respondents treated all injuries by non-operative methods. IM = intramedullary
  2. + significant difference when compared to responses for closed fractures (low energy)
  3. # significant difference when compared to responses for Grade I open fractures (p < 0.01)
  4. 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