ABSTRACT
Introduction: Minimally invasive percutaneousosteosynthesis (MIPO) plating techniques havedemonstrated good outcomes in the treatment of distal tibia fractures. Early arthritis and functional impairment mayoccur if length and rotation are not restored. This study aims to determine the incidence and severity of tibia malrotation following MIPO plating of isolated unilateral distal tibia fractures, defined as torsional difference of greater than 10° as compared to the contralateral limb and whether the degree of malrotation affects functional outcomes scores. Materials and methods: This was a level 2 prospective cohort study. All patients with fractures of the distal tibia who underwent surgical fixation with the exclusion ofpatients with polytrauma, neurovascular injuries or pre-existing disabilities were recruited. Patients underwent MIPO plating followed by a post-operative ComputedTomography (CT) scan of bilateral lower limbs. AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was recorded at six months and one year follow-up. Results: A total of 24 patients (28 to 83 years old) were recruited. Nineteen patients obtained CT scans. Nine of the 19 patients (47.3%) had tibia malrotation. The mean tibia malrotation angle was 10.3° (0° - 45°). The average AOFAS scores was 82.4 and 84.3 at 6 months and 1 year follow-up. Degree of CT malrotation was not significantly associated with AOFAS scores at 6 month (spearman rho -0.386) and 1 year (spearman rho -0.343). Conclusions: Tibia malrotation following MIPO plating of distal tibia fractures is common, with an incidence of 47.3% and an average malrotation angle of 10.3°. The degree of malrotation does not appear to have significant mid-term functional impact on the patient.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Two common crutches utilised for orthopaedic rehabilitation include the axillary crutch and forearm crutch, with either crutch providing weight transfer through different mechanisms. This study aims to determine which crutch is best for patients, with specific reference to crutch gait and stability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a level 2 prospective cohort study, recruiting 20 volunteers between 40 to 80 years old. Participants underwent 3 stations in 3 point crutch gait: straight line ambulation of 20m, timed-up-and-go-test, and computerised dynamic posturography. Participants also answered a subjective questionnaire on their crutch preferences. RESULTS: Axillary crutches demonstrated a faster speed of ambulation compared to forearm crutches (Axillary crutch v=0.5m/s, Forearm crutch v=0.44m/s, p=0.002). There was a lower increase in heart rate post activity for axillary crutches. For the timed-up-and-go test, completing the circuit with Axillary crutches was faster (t=63.06, p<0.001) versus the forearm crutch (t=75.36, p<0.001). For computerised dynamic posturography, participants recorded lower effort scores for backward tilts when using axillary crutches (39.13, p=0.0497) versus forearm crutches (42.03, p=0.0497). Subjectively, majority of participants felt that axillary crutches had an easier learning curve and were superior in the areas of ambulation, balance and stability. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that axillary crutches were superior to forearm crutches for 3-point crutch gait; axillary crutches had a faster ambulation speed, required less effort during use, provided superior stability and were the preferred choice subjectively. This study would be helpful for clinicians and therapists when prescribing mobility aids to individuals with impaired gait.
ABSTRACT
@#Introduction: Two common crutches utilised for orthopaedic rehabilitation include the axillary crutch and forearm crutch, with either crutch providing weight transfer through different mechanisms. This study aims to determine which crutch is best for patients, with specific reference to crutch gait and stability. Materials and methods: This is a level 2 prospective cohort study, recruiting 20 volunteers between 40 to 80 years old. Participants underwent 3 stations in 3 point crutch gait: straight line ambulation of 20m, timed-up-and-go-test, and computerised dynamic posturography. Participants also answered a subjective questionnaire on their crutch preferences. Results: Axillary crutches demonstrated a faster speed of ambulation compared to forearm crutches (Axillary crutch v=0.5m/s, Forearm crutch v=0.44m/s, p=0.002). There was a lower increase in heart rate post activity for axillary crutches. For the timed-up-and-go test, completing the circuit with Axillary crutches was faster (t=63.06, p<0.001) versus the forearm crutch (t=75.36, p<0.001). For computerised dynamic posturography, participants recorded lower effort scores for backward tilts when using axillary crutches (39.13, p=0.0497) versus forearm crutches (42.03, p=0.0497). Subjectively, majority of participants felt that axillary crutches had an easier learning curve and were superior in the areas of ambulation, balance and stability. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that axillary crutches were superior to forearm crutches for 3-point crutch gait; axillary crutches had a faster ambulation speed, required less effort during use, provided superior stability and were the preferred choice subjectively. This study would be helpful for clinicians and therapists when prescribing mobility aids to individuals with impaired gait.
