Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of ESIN, Plate, and K-Wire Fixation in Pediatric Tibial DDMJ Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study

TL;DR

This study compares three methods for fixing tibial fractures in children, finding that each has different benefits in recovery speed, cost, and stability.

Contribution

A retrospective comparative analysis of ESIN, plate, and K-wire fixation for pediatric tibial DDMJ fractures.

Findings

Plate fixation had the highest AOFAS scores at 4 months but higher costs and soft-tissue complications.

ESIN provided a balance between stability and invasiveness.

K-wire fixation was the most economical but less stable.

Abstract

Background: Tibial distal diaphyseal–metaphyseal junction (DDMJ) fractures are rare in children and pose therapeutic challenges due to their morphology and risk of displacement. This study compared the clinical, radiological, and economic outcomes of elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN), plate fixation, and Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 64 patients (6–15 years) treated between 2014 and 2023. Patients were grouped according to fixation method. Demographic, operative, radiographic, functional (AOFAS), complication, and cost data were analyzed. Results: The K-wire group, plate group, and ESIN group consisted of 27, 19, and 18 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 18.03 ± 6.87 months. Of the patients, 38 were male and 26 were female. Concomitant fibula fractures were present in 43 patients and were not present in 21 patients. AOFAS scores were highest in the plate group at the 4th month, while they were similar in all groups in the subsequent follow-ups. The costliest method was plate (2517.64 ± 104.83 $) (p = 0.001). Conclusions: All three fixation methods provided satisfactory long-term outcomes. Plate fixation offers faster early recovery but at higher cost and risk of soft-tissue complications; ESIN balances stability and invasiveness; K-wire is economical but less stable. Treatment choice should be individualized according to fracture pattern, patient factors, and resource availability.

Figures