Table 1.
Implant preference among surgeons (N = 444)
| 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 |
* 0.8% respondents treated all injuries by non-operative methods. IM = intramedullary
+ significant difference when compared to responses for closed fractures (low energy)
# significant difference when compared to responses for Grade I open fractures (p < 0.01)
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