• M C Forster, A S W Bruce, and A S Aster.
• Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary Square, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK. mcforster@doctors.org.uk
• Injury. 2005 Mar 1; 36 (3): 439-44.

AbstractA systematic review was performed to assess reamed and unreamed tibial nailing. Only prospective, randomised studies comparing reamed and unreamed tibial nailing in adults were included. A literature search found 1200 possible articles. There were seven comparative studies. These articles were independently assessed by all three authors. Three studies met the inclusion criteria. Each outcome measure tested was assessed for heterogeneity. If significant heterogeneity was present, data from the studies was not combined. If there was no significant heterogeneity, a combined odds ratio was calculated using a fixed effects model and a Z-test was performed to test the overall effect. Two hundred and ninety-one tibial shaft fractures were entered into the included studies. Two hundred and eighty (96%) were followed up (148 reamed; 132 unreamed). There was an increased non-union rate when the tibia was not reamed (p = 0.02). Screw breakage was more common in the unreamed group (p<0.0001). This study could find little difference in the incidence of other complications following reamed or unreamed tibial nailing.

16 keywords...

hide…