Skip to main content
Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery logoLink to Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery
. 2026 Feb;40(2):273–277. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202508076

胫骨逆行髓内钉治疗胫骨远端关节外骨折术后踝前痛发生的研究

Study on occurrence of anterior ankle pain after distal tibial extra-articular fractures treated with retrograde tibial intramedullary nail

Yuanfei XIONG 1, Hui LIU 1, Tianlai CHEN 1, Weibin LIN 1, Jinhui ZHANG 1, Jin WU 1,*
PMCID: PMC12948516  PMID: 41730737

Abstract

Objective

To investigate whether retrograde tibial intramedullary nail (RTN) fixation can cause postoperative anterior ankle pain in the treatment of distal tibial extra-articular fracture.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed for 29 patients with distal tibial extra-articular fractures caused by trauma, who received RTN treatment between January 2021 and December 2023. There were 19 males and 10 females, with an average age of 47.3 years. There were 18 cases of closed fractures and 11 cases of open fractures. The time from injury to hospital admission was 1-5 days, with an average of 3.7 days. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, bone healing time, time to full weight-bearing, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Olerud-Molander ankle score (OMAS), and occurrence of anterior ankle pain were recorded.

Results

The operation time was 43-75 minutes (mean, 60.7 minutes); intraoperative blood loss was 50-120 mL (mean, 88.3 mL). All patients were followed up 14-32 months (mean, 24.0 months). All patients achieved fracture healing and the healing time was 3-6 months (mean, 4.5 months). The postoperative full weight-bearing time was 40-63 days (mean, 53.3 days). The VAS scores were 0-5 (mean, 2.0) at 3 months after operation and 0-3 (mean, 1.5) at last follow-up. The OMAS scores were 60-95 (mean, 80.3) at last follow-up and the ankle functions were rated as excellent in 3 cases, good in 24, and fair in 2, with a excellent and good rate of 93.1%. The postoperative anterior ankle pain occurred in 2 patients (6.9%) and relieved after removal of RTN.

Conclusion

RTN treatment for distal tibial extra-articular fractures provides firm fixation, which is beneficial for early postoperative functional exercise and weight-bearing in patients, and has a lower incidence of anterior ankle pain.

Keywords: Retrograde tibial intramedullary nail, distal tibial extra-articular fracture, anterior ankle pain


胫骨远端关节外骨折是临床常见的下肢骨折类型之一,指距离胫骨远端关节面4 ~12 cm之间的骨折,年发病率为9.1/10万[1-2]。该骨折通常由高能量创伤导致,常伴有不同程度软组织损伤,目前常用微创锁定钢板(minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis,MIPO)或胫骨顺行髓内钉固定治疗。其中,MIPO技术虽然微创,考虑到解剖复位和刚性固定的需要,有时仍需较广泛的软组织暴露,因此切口相关并发症发生率较高[3];此外钢板为偏心型固定,影响了力学稳定性,不利于患者早期负重。而胫骨顺行髓内钉具有微创间接复位、软组织激惹小、中心型固定优势,但由于胫骨远端髓腔宽大、固定节段较短,导致骨折成角、畸形愈合及固定不牢固等并发症发生率较高[4]。此外,临床发现该内固定术后常发生膝前痛,发生率为10%~87%[5],其原因尚未完全明确,可能与手术入路、术中损伤髌腱和隐神经髌下支、术中损伤膝部脂肪垫、术后髓内钉尾帽突出、髌骨关节面软骨异常受力、康复锻炼等因素有关[6-11],严重影响患者膝关节功能和生活质量。

胫骨逆行髓内钉(retrograde tibial intramedullary nail,RTN)是近年来一种新兴微创内固定方式,与上述两种内固定相比,在骨折端微动控制和内固定结构安全性方面更具优势,治疗胫骨远端骨折可获得良好早期疗效[12-17]。但是,RTN术后患者是否存在类似顺行髓内钉术后膝前痛的踝前痛及其发生机制等问题,尚缺乏大样本远期随访结果[13]。为此,我们回顾性分析2021年1月—2023年12月采用RTN治疗且随访达1年的胫骨远端关节外骨折患者临床资料,总结RTN术后踝前痛发生率并分析可能原因,旨在为RTN长期安全性评估提供临床依据。报告如下。

1. 临床资料

1.1. 一般资料

患者纳入标准:① 年龄≥18岁且胫骨远端骨骺发育成熟;② 胫骨远端近踝部短节段骨折,包括国际内固定研究协会/骨科创伤协会(AO/OTA)43A1、43A2、43A3型及Gustilo Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲa型;③ 采用RTN内固定治疗;④ 随访时间≥12个月。 排除标准:① 病理性、陈旧性骨折;② 合并重要神经、血管损伤或重要脏器损伤;③ 随访资料不完整;④ 术前踝关节存在功能障碍或局部软组织缺损、感染。

2021年1月—2023年12月,共29例患者符合选择标准纳入研究。男19例,女10例;年龄18~68岁,平均47.3岁。致伤原因:重物砸伤4例,跌倒伤4例,交通事故伤17例,高处坠落伤4例。左侧16例,右侧13例。受伤至入院时间1~5 d,平均3.7 d。骨折AO/OTA分型:43A1型9例,43A2型10例,43A3型10例。其中11例为开放性骨折,Gustilo分型:Ⅰ型3例,Ⅱ型5例,Ⅲa型3例。合并伤:脑外伤2例,血气胸2例,肋骨骨折1例,同侧腓骨骨折13例,对侧第1趾骨骨折1例,对侧第5跖骨骨折1例,同侧髌骨骨折1例,同侧桡骨远端骨折1例。合并基础疾病:糖尿病3例,慢性阻塞性肺疾病2例,原发性高血压病2例,冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病1例。

1.2. 治疗方法

患者入院后予以抗凝、止痛等对症治疗,同时积极治疗合并的基础疾病。摄患侧胫腓骨、踝关节正侧位X线片,必要时行踝关节三维CT检查,常规行彩色多普勒超声检查排除下肢深静脉血栓形成。根据骨折类型行跟骨结节牵引(21例)或外固定架(8例)临时固定,待术区软组织肿胀消退后行内固定手术。入院至内固定手术时间2~7 d,平均3.8 d。

参照文献 [13] 方法行胫骨骨折处理并RTN固定。其中,11例腓骨骨折线与下胫腓韧带联合距离<8 cm者,先行腓骨骨折切开复位钢板内固定,再采用RTN固定胫骨远端骨折。其余患者仅行RTN固定胫骨远端骨折。

1.3. 术后处理及疗效评价指标

术后常规抗凝、镇痛、预防感染等治疗。术后第1天行患肢足趾和踝关节主被动屈伸活动;第3天开始指导患者行踝关节主动屈伸、内外翻和旋转活动,直至患者能进行无痛主动运动;第2周开始抗阻患肢力量训练和扶拐步行转移训练;第4周开始部分负重训练,根据患肢疼痛和骨折愈合情况决定完全负重时间。记录手术时间、术中出血量及术后骨折愈合情况、患者完全负重时间、疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Olerud-Molander踝关节骨折功能评分(OMAS)和踝前痛发生情况。

2. 结果

本组手术时间43~75 min,平均60.7 min;术中出血量50~120 mL,平均88.3 mL。术后患者均获随访,随访时间14~32个月,平均24.0个月。影像学复查示骨折均愈合,愈合时间3~6个月,平均4.5个月。术后40~63 d患者开始完全负重活动,平均53.3 d。VAS评分术后3个月0~5分,平均2.0分;末次随访时0~3分,平均1.5分。末次随访时,OMAS评分60~95分,平均80.3分;获优3例、良24例、一般2例,优良率93.1%。术后2例(6.9%)出现踝前痛,取出内固定物后疼痛缓解。其余未发生踝前痛患者中,3例待骨折愈合后分别于术后12、11、10个月取出内固定物。

3. 典型病例

例1 患者,女,56岁。因“交通事故伤致左小腿下段肿痛畸形、活动受限1 d”入院。患者2年前因左胫骨下段骨折于外院行左胫骨骨折切开复位内固定术,术后骨折愈合良好,6个月前行骨折内固定物取出术。本次入院查体:左小腿下段肿胀畸形明显,皮肤无破溃,足趾末梢血运良好,左小腿下段压痛明显,轴向叩击痛阳性,左下肢感觉正常,双下肢大致等长。X线片检查示左侧胫骨远端骨折。入院诊断:左侧胫骨远端骨折(AO/OTA 43A1型)。入院后行抗凝、止痛、跟骨结节牵引等处理,3 d后行左侧胫骨骨折闭合复位RTN内固定。手术时间65 min,术中出血量80 mL。术后3 d X线片复查示尾帽未拧紧,部分位置突出胫骨骨面。术后第2周患者主诉踝前痛,49 d后开始完全负重,3个月时VAS评分5分;术后5个月骨折愈合,于12个月行RTN取出后疼痛缓解,VAS评分1分。患者获随访15个月,踝关节功能良好,OMAS评分85分。见图1

图 1.

Case 1

例1

a、b. 术前正侧位X线片;c、d. 术后3 d 正侧位X线片示尾帽部分突出胫骨骨面(箭头);e、f. 术后12个月取出RTN前正侧位X线片;g~k. 术后12个月RTN取出后即刻正侧位X线片及三维CT示髓内遗留钉道影

a, b. Preoperative anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films; c, d. Anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films at 3 days after operation showed that the tail cap protruded from the tibial surface (arrow); e, f. Anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films at 12 months after operation (before removal of RTN); g-k. Anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films and three-dimensional CT at immediate after removal of RTN showed that the nail tract shadows remained in the medullary cavity

图 1

例2 患者,男,48岁。因“交通事故伤致左小腿下段出血肿痛、活动受限1 d”入院。查体:左小腿下段可见一长约0.5 cm不规则伤口,部分骨质外露,足趾末梢血运良好,左小腿下段压痛明显,轴向叩击痛阳性,左下肢感觉正常,双下肢大致等长。X线片检查示左侧胫、腓骨远端骨折。入院诊断:左侧胫、腓骨远端骨折(Gustilo Ⅰ型,AO/OTA 43A2型)。入院后即刻行左小腿清创缝合术及跟骨结节牵引术,5 d后伤口情况稳定,行左侧胫骨骨折闭合复位RTN内固定术+左腓骨骨折切开复位内固定术。手术时间70 min,术中出血量105 mL。术后4 d X线片复查示RTN位置较深。术后第4周患者主诉踝前痛,于52 d开始完全负重, 3个月时VAS评分为4分;术后4个月骨折愈合,11个月时取出RTN后疼痛缓解,VAS评分2分。患者获随访18个月,踝关节功能良好, OMAS评分80分。见图2

图 2.

Anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films of case 2

例2正侧位X线片

a. 术前;b. 术后4 d示RTN位置较深(箭头);c. 术后11个月RTN取出前;d. 术后11个月RTN取出后即刻

a. Before operation; b. The films at 4 days after operation showed that the RTN was inserted too deep (arrow); c. Before removal of RTN (at 11 months after operation); d. At immediate after removal of RTN

图 2

4. 讨论

4.1. 胫骨远端关节外骨折治疗现状

锁定钢板是胫骨远端关节外骨折常用内固定方式之一,但存在对骨折周围软组织激惹较大、需要延长术前准备时间、骨折畸形发生率和局部软组织压力较高等不足[1]。胫骨顺行髓内钉具有中心型固定、对骨膜供血保护好和软组织激惹小等一系列优点[18],应用于胫骨远端骨折时也可获得良好临床疗效[19]。然而由于相对于胫骨髓腔远端宽大髓腔,传统顺行髓内钉较细,常不能与远端骨折块完全匹配,使得髓内钉与干骺端皮质骨之间无接触,髓内钉锁孔与锁钉之间有间隙而发生晃动,产生所谓的“雨刷效应”[20]。此外,远端骨折块短,髓内钉主钉和锁定螺钉远端工作距离不足,交锁固定作用减弱,锁钉固定位置选择少,骨折固定效果不理想,易出现冠状面成角移位、骨折畸形愈合和延迟愈合等并发症[21-22]。新型顺行髓内钉的解剖型、低轮廓、远端多枚多方向锁钉的设计,加之阻挡螺钉等辅助复位技术的应用,在很大程度上解决了上述问题,但仍无法解决术后慢性膝前痛问题[23]

因此,寻找一种既具有顺行髓内钉微创、牢固和中心型固定优势,又可避免慢性膝前痛的新型内固定方式成为胫骨远端关节外骨折治疗热点。

4.2. RTN在胫骨远端关节外骨折中的应用现状

Hofmann等于20世纪90年代末首次提出了RTN概念[24],进一步在此基础上设计出产品并应用于临床[25]。生物力学研究表明RTN是一种有效的胫骨远端骨折内固定方式,其固定效能优于锁定钢板和顺行髓内钉[26-27],初步临床应用研究也验证了RTN优越性[28]。本团队一直致力于RTN在胫骨远端关节外骨折中的应用研究,本组29例患者术后骨折均愈合,平均愈合时间4.5个月,术后平均完全负重时间53.3 d,末次随访时VAS评分平均1.5分、OMAS评分平均80.3分,踝关节功能优良率达93.1%,进一步提示RTN用于胫骨远端关节外骨折治疗可获得良好疗效。但是在临床实践中我们也发现,少数患者术后会出现类似于胫骨顺行髓内钉术后膝前痛的踝前痛,本组有2例患者发生该情况。目前,有关RTN治疗胫骨远端骨折远期随访研究有限,该踝前痛发生机制是否与膝前痛类似,RTN是否需要取出、取出时机选择、取出后是否会缓解或加重疼痛仍需进一步研究[29]

4.3. RTN在胫骨远端关节外骨折治疗中导致踝前痛的原因分析

① 钉尾刺激/撞击:如果髓内钉尾端过长,突出于骨皮质表面,会直接刺激或压迫前方的软组织或在踝关节背屈时撞击距骨颈,引起疼痛。即使钉尾长度合适,如果其位置过于表浅或角度不佳,也可能在活动时产生摩擦和刺激。本组1例RTN尾帽术中未拧紧且位置不佳,患者术后出现踝前痛。考虑为活动时位置不佳的尾帽与周围组织产生摩擦及刺激,继而引起踝前痛,RTN取出后疼痛明显缓解。② 感染:术后深部或浅表感染(累及切口、钉道、关节)会引起疼痛、红肿、发热,容易引起后期遗留切口周围痛觉过敏表现。③ 腓浅神经损伤/卡压/神经瘤:腓浅神经的分支(主要是内侧支)走行于踝关节前外侧皮下。手术切口、牵拉、缝合、术后瘢痕或钉尾压迫都可能导致该神经损伤,引起其支配区域 (足背中内侧) 的麻木、刺痛、烧灼痛或痛觉过敏。严重时可形成神经瘤。④ 骨折未愈合/延迟愈合:如果骨折本身未达到稳定愈合,活动时应力传导异常可能导致踝关节周围不适或疼痛(疼痛部位可能更广泛)。⑤ 复杂性区域疼痛综合征[30]:一种较少见但严重的神经血管功能障碍,表现为持续剧烈疼痛、肿胀、皮肤颜色温度改变、痛觉过敏、活动障碍等。⑥ 关节内损伤、关节内游离体:术中操作或钉尾撞击可能导致关节软骨损伤或产生游离体,引起术后踝关节疼痛和踝关节活动时的交锁感。⑦ 三角韧带损伤:RTN进钉点为内踝,通常需采用较粗的开口钻在内踝处进行开口,术中应仔细分离保护三角韧带,否则容易引起损伤。此外术中插入RTN时应轻柔旋转进入,切不可暴力操作,亦可损伤三角韧带。本组1例患者术后出现踝前痛,考虑为术中进钉时旋转进钉困难,采用暴力敲击不慎导致RTN进钉较深,可能与三角韧带损伤有关。因此,我们认为2例患者出现术后踝前痛的原因均为内固定物位置不佳,取出后疼痛均缓解明显。这与顺行髓内钉因尾帽突出产生术后膝前痛的原因类似,尚未发现类似于顺行髓内钉术后膝前痛产生的其他原因,考虑与膝前和内踝处不同的解剖结构有关。

综上述,RTN治疗胫骨远端关节外骨折具有微创、固定牢固,有利于早期功能锻炼和负重等优势。但本研究为单中心回顾性研究,存在选择偏倚、例数有限且随访时间较短等不足,缺少对照组比较,因此研究结论有待大规模前瞻性随机对照试验进一步验证。此外,RTN术后踝前痛的发生与术中操作密切相关,通过规范操作可减少此类并发症的发生。

利益冲突 在课题研究和文章撰写过程中不存在利益冲突

伦理声明 研究方案经厦门大学附属东南医院医学伦理委员会批准

作者贡献声明 吴进、刘晖、熊远飞:研究设计和实施;熊远飞:文章撰写;林伟斌、陈添来:数据收集、统计分析;张金辉:文章修改及审阅

References

  • 1.Li X, Chen K, Xue H, et al Efficacy comparison between intramedullary nail fixation and plate fixation in distal tibia fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2024;19(1):403. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04900-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wennergren D, Bergdahl C, Ekelund J, et al Epidemiology and incidence of tibia fractures in the Swedish Fracture Register. Injury. 2018;49(11):2068–2074. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.葛振新, 王明法, 牛德刚, 等 两种术式治疗胫骨远端A型骨折的疗效比较. 临床骨科杂志. 2025;28(4):575–578. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0287.2025.04.040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gao F, Wang XH, Xia SL, et al Intramedullary nail fixation by suprapatellar and infrapatellar approaches for treatment of distal tibial fractures. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(9):2350–2360. doi: 10.1111/os.13397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Erin-Madsen N, Aasvang TK, Viberg B, et al Knee pain and associated complications after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fracture. Dan Med J. 2019;66(8):A5554. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.廖云健, 黄佳, 尤加锐, 等 不同入路行胫骨骨折髓内钉固定的疗效比较及术后膝部疼痛原因分析. 实用骨科杂志. 2023;29(12):1081–1085. doi: 10.13795/j.cnki.sgkz.2023.12.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.van de Pol GJ, Axelrod DE, Conyard C, et al A suprapatellar approach, when compared with an infrapatellar approach, yields less anterior knee pain and better patellofemoral joint function, for intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal tibial fractures: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Trauma. 2024;38(5):235–239. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ahmad S, Ahmed A, Khan L, et al Comparative analysis of anterior knee pain in transpatellar and medial parapatellar tendon approaches in tibial interlocking nailing. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2016;28(4):694–697. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang C, Chen E, Ye C, et al Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach for tibia intramedullary nailing: A meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2018;51:133–139. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Beckwith M, Cushman D, Clark T, et al Radiofrequency ablation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve for the treatment of chronic anterior inferomedial knee pain. Pain Med. 2023;24(2):150–157. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnac108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Soraganvi PC, Anand-Kumar BS, Rajagopalakrishnan R, et al. Anterior knee pain after tibial intra-medullary nailing: is it predictable? Malays Orthop J, 2016, 10(2): 16-20.
  • 12.王义昌, 林文杰, 林涛, 等 胫骨远端骨折三种内固定方式的有限元分析. 中国组织工程研究. 2023;27(36):5760–5765. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.何敏, 李正茂, 谭文甫, 等 新型逆行胫骨髓内钉治疗胫骨远端骨折的初步疗效分析. 中华创伤骨科杂志. 2022;24(4):334–338. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20211014-00444. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Peng B, Wan T, Tan W, et al Novel retrograde tibial intramedullary nailing for distal tibial fractures. Front Surg. 2022;9:899483. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.899483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Liu H, Xu W, Xiong Y, et al. Distal tibial fractures fixation using retrograde tibial intramedullary nail in high-risk patients: a retrospective study. Acta Orthop Belg. 2024, 90(3): 559-565.
  • 16.Liu H, Xu W, Xiong Y, et al Retrograde tibial intramedullary nail versus minimally invasive locking plate for extra-articular distal tibial fractures: a comparative and retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2024;19(1):481. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04979-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhai WL, Xiong YF, Liu H, et al. Nonunion of the distal one-fourth of the tibia treated by retrograde tibial intramedullary nail. J Int Med Res, 2024, 52(10): 3000605241289017. doi: 10.1177/03000605241289017.
  • 18.Tse S, Saade A, Simister SK, et al Clinical and radiographic outcomes of small caliber intramedullary nails for tibial shaft fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2025;9(2):e24.00389. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baker HP, Strelzow J, Dillman D Tibial alignment following intramedullary nailing via three approaches. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022;32(7):1247–1255. doi: 10.1007/s00590-021-03101-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Stedtfeld HW, Mittlmeier T, Landgraf P, et al. The logic and clinical applications of blocking screws. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2004, 86-A Suppl 2: 17-25.
  • 21.Kc KM, Pangeni BR, Marahatta SB, et al Comparative study between intramedullary interlocking nailing and minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis for distal tibia extra-articular fractures. Chin J Traumatol. 2022;25(2):90–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.08.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chun DI, Min TH, Kang EM, et al Comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes in patients treated with standard plating versus intramedullary nailing in distal tibial fracture. Orthop Surg. 2022;14(3):536–542. doi: 10.1111/os.13210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.张磊, 杨建成, 许喆, 等 微创经皮钢板与专家级胫骨髓内钉治疗胫骨远端干骺端骨折的进展. 实用骨科杂志. 2024;30(12):1095–1098. doi: 10.13795/j.cnki.sgkz.2024.12.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hofmann G, Gonschorek O, Bühler M, et al. Retrograde nagelung der tibia. Trauma Und Berufskrankheit, 2001, 3(2 Supplement): S303-S308.
  • 25.Kuhn S, Appelmann P, Pairon P, et al. The retrograde tibial nail: presentation and biomechanical evaluation of a new concept in the treatment of distal tibia fractures. Injury, 2014, 45 Suppl 1: S81-S86.
  • 26.Lin X, Zhang C, Yang Y, et al Comparative experimental study of the biomechanical properties of retrograde tibial nailing and distal tibia plate in distal tibia fracture. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024;12:1322043. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1322043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Greenfield J, Appelmann P, Wunderlich F, et al Retrograde tibial nailing of far distal tibia fractures: a biomechanical evaluation of double- versus triple-distal interlocking. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(5):3693–3700. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01843-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yamakawa Y, Uehara T, Shigemoto K, et al Preliminary results of stabilization of far distal tibia fractures with the distal tibial nail: A prospective, multicenter case series study. Injury. 2024;55(8):111634. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.林伟斌, 刘晖, 徐维臻, 等 胫骨逆行髓内钉治疗胫骨远端骨折疗效及并发症分析. 骨科. 2024;15(6):559–562. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8573.2024.06.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.郝鹏, 杜传超, 程华, 等 维生素C对复杂性区域疼痛综合征预防效果的Meta分析. 创伤外科杂志. 2016;18(10):595–598. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-4237.2016.10.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery are provided here courtesy of Sichuan University

RESOURCES