Intramedullary Fixation Versus Plate Fixation of Distal Fibular Fractures: A Systematic Review – Key Publication

Key Takeaways: There has been a growing interest in the use of intramedullary fixation devices for treating fibular fractures in recent years.
Current literature reveals near equivalence in union rates between IMN and ORIF (99% for IMN vs 97% for ORIF), yet a significantly
lower risk of complications with IMN (15% for IMN vs 30% for ORIF).
Fibular IMN is associated with lower infection rates in part due to their minimally invasive, soft tissue preserving nature with a smaller
incision of ~1 to 2 cm. Also, with its less invasive approach, IMN patients were shown to have undergone surgery at least four days
sooner than ORIF, suggesting that the general principle to delay surgery until soft tissue swelling has settled may be less critical
when considering an IMN technique. Both factors are seen to help reduce the overall risk of wound complications. The long-term
benefits of reducing complications from IMN, specifically associated with wound complications in high-risk populations, may notably
improve quality of care for patients with distal fibula fractures.
Acumed’s Fibula Nail 2 is a great treatment option for fibular fracture fixation. It is particularly advantageous for patient populations
where soft tissue preservation is critical—including diabetics, smokers, the elderly, and patients with compromised vascular status
or thin, soft tissue envelopes. Its percutaneous, minimally invasive, zero-profile design minimizes surgical dissection and can aid in
faster surgical delivery, thereby reducing risks of wound breakdown, infection, and hardware prominence–ultimately helping improve
overall patient satisfaction in outcomes due to its accelerated recovery, reduced risk of wound-related complications and improved
cosmetic outcomes.