A Comparative Study of Functional Outcome of Distal Both Bone Leg Fractures Treated with Fibula Fixation and Conservative Management for Tibia Vs Fibula Fixation and Operative Management for Tibia
Authors/Creators
- 1. Senior Resident, MBBS, Master of Surgery in Orthopedics, Department of Orthopedics, Nayagram Multi/Superspeciality Hospital, Jhargram, West Bengal 721159
- 2. Associate Professor, MBBS, Diploma and Master of Surgery in Orthopedics, Department of Orthopedics, Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Beniapukur, Kolkata 700014
- 3. Professor of Orthopaedics, MBBS, Diploma and Master of Surgery in Orthopedics, Department of Orthopedics, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital Shusrutnagar, Darjeeling 734012
Description
Introduction: Distal fractures of both tibia and fibula are common lower limb injuries that can result in
significant functional impairment if not appropriately managed. While operative fixation of the tibia is standard
in displaced fractures, conservative management remains an option in select cases. The role of fibula fixation in
influencing tibial alignment and functional outcomes remains under debate.
Aims: This study aims to compare the functional outcomes of distal both bone leg fractures treated with fibula
fixation combined with conservative management of tibia versus fibula fixation with operative fixation of the
tibia.
Methods: This prospective study was conducted at Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital from
January 2021 to February 2022, including 60 adults (30 per group) with distal tibia and fibula fractures. Data on
demographics, injury characteristics, fracture type, co-morbidities, and complications were collected. Group A
received fibula fixation with conservative tibial management, while Group B had fibula fixation with operative
tibial management. Functional outcomes, weight-bearing times, fracture union, and complications were assessed
to compare the two treatment approaches.
Result: Among 60 patients, most were young adults (21–30 years, 35%) and males (58.3%), with road traffic
accidents (56.7%) as the leading cause. AO type A1 fractures were most common (50%). Group A had a slightly
higher mean age (41.8 ± 13.7 vs. 35.8 ± 11.0 years, p = 0.0681). Operative time was shorter in Group A (0.48 ±
0.19 vs. 1.50 ± 0.27 hours, p < 0.0001). Partial weight bearing was similar (≈5 weeks), but full weight bearing
(16.9 ± 1.9 vs. 14.7 ± 1.7 weeks, p < 0.0001) and fracture union (26.4 ± 2.0 vs. 22.6 ± 3.1 weeks, p < 0.0001)
occurred earlier in Group B. Functional outcomes improved over time in both groups, with no significant
differences at 6 months (63.5 ± 10.10 vs. 68.0 ± 9.70, p = 0.0837) or 9 months (78.33 ± 13.79 vs. 83.0 ± 10.80,
p = 0.1499).
Conclusion: Fibula fixation combined with operative fixation of the tibia provides superior functional
outcomes, earlier union, and better alignment in distal both bone leg fractures compared to fibula fixation with
conservative management of tibia. Conservative management may be considered only in selected cases with
minimal displacement, but operative tibial fixation remains the preferred approach to optimize functional
recovery and reduce complications.
Abstract (English)
Introduction: Distal fractures of both tibia and fibula are common lower limb injuries that can result in
significant functional impairment if not appropriately managed. While operative fixation of the tibia is standard
in displaced fractures, conservative management remains an option in select cases. The role of fibula fixation in
influencing tibial alignment and functional outcomes remains under debate.
Aims: This study aims to compare the functional outcomes of distal both bone leg fractures treated with fibula
fixation combined with conservative management of tibia versus fibula fixation with operative fixation of the
tibia.
Methods: This prospective study was conducted at Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital from
January 2021 to February 2022, including 60 adults (30 per group) with distal tibia and fibula fractures. Data on
demographics, injury characteristics, fracture type, co-morbidities, and complications were collected. Group A
received fibula fixation with conservative tibial management, while Group B had fibula fixation with operative
tibial management. Functional outcomes, weight-bearing times, fracture union, and complications were assessed
to compare the two treatment approaches.
Result: Among 60 patients, most were young adults (21–30 years, 35%) and males (58.3%), with road traffic
accidents (56.7%) as the leading cause. AO type A1 fractures were most common (50%). Group A had a slightly
higher mean age (41.8 ± 13.7 vs. 35.8 ± 11.0 years, p = 0.0681). Operative time was shorter in Group A (0.48 ±
0.19 vs. 1.50 ± 0.27 hours, p < 0.0001). Partial weight bearing was similar (≈5 weeks), but full weight bearing
(16.9 ± 1.9 vs. 14.7 ± 1.7 weeks, p < 0.0001) and fracture union (26.4 ± 2.0 vs. 22.6 ± 3.1 weeks, p < 0.0001)
occurred earlier in Group B. Functional outcomes improved over time in both groups, with no significant
differences at 6 months (63.5 ± 10.10 vs. 68.0 ± 9.70, p = 0.0837) or 9 months (78.33 ± 13.79 vs. 83.0 ± 10.80,
p = 0.1499).
Conclusion: Fibula fixation combined with operative fixation of the tibia provides superior functional
outcomes, earlier union, and better alignment in distal both bone leg fractures compared to fibula fixation with
conservative management of tibia. Conservative management may be considered only in selected cases with
minimal displacement, but operative tibial fixation remains the preferred approach to optimize functional
recovery and reduce complications.
Files
IJCPR,Vol17,Issue9,Article77.pdf
Files
(370.3 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:1408d3aaaaffafd5ea59493dc856fcf7
|
370.3 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2025-09-06