Double Reverse Traction-Assisted Versus Traditional Freehand Closed Reduction With Hexapod External Fixator in Treating Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Retrospective Study

Zhiming Zhao , Yuanyuan Geng , Bowen Shi , Jian Chen , Yabin Liu , Chengkuo Cai , Guoqi Ji , Weiguo Xu

Orthopaedic Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (2) : 279 -288.

PDF (800KB)
Orthopaedic Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (2) :279 -288. DOI: 10.1111/os.70239
CLINICAL ARTICLE
Double Reverse Traction-Assisted Versus Traditional Freehand Closed Reduction With Hexapod External Fixator in Treating Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Retrospective Study
Author information +
History +
PDF (800KB)

Abstract

Objective: Open tibial shaft fractures (OTSFs) pose significant therapeutic challenges due to high-energy trauma, extensive soft tissue damage, and contamination risks, complicating fracture stabilization and increasing infection rates. Conventional freehand closed reduction often requires multiple attempts, exacerbating soft tissue injury and radiation exposure. To address these limitations, this study evaluates a double reverse traction-assisted technique, hypothesizing that it could improve reduction accuracy and reduce complications in OTSFs managed with hexapod external fixators (HEFs).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the records of 55 hospitalized patients with AO/OTA type 42-A or 42-B OTSFs treated with HEF between March 2020 and March 2023. Double reverse traction-assisted closed reduction was performed on 28 patients (DRTA group), while traditional freehand closed reduction was performed on 27 patients (Freehand group). We documented fracture reduction time, fluoroscopy time, external fixation time, radiographic results, electronic prescription count, and complications. Final clinical outcomes were assessed using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) criteria at a mean follow-up of 15.3 months. Statistical analysis was performed using independent samples t-tests or the chi-square test.

Results: DRTA group demonstrated significantly shorter fracture reduction time (12.13 ± 2.12 vs. 17.14 ± 3.43 min; p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (8.12 ± 1.78 vs. 13.75 ± 2.62; p < 0.001) compared to the Freehand group. External fixation time showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). DRTA group exhibited superior radiographic alignment, with significantly reduced residual translation and angulation on AP/lateral views (all p < 0.05). The electronic prescription count for postoperative correction was significantly lower in the DRTA group (0.9 ± 0.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0; p < 0.05). The complication rate was lower in the DRTA group (32.1%) than in the Freehand group (48.1%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). ASAMI scores were similar between both groups (p > 0.05). ASAMI bone and functional scores were similar between groups.

Conclusion: In this retrospective study, both reduction techniques achieved favorable therapeutic outcomes. However, the double reverse traction-assisted technique was associated with greater efficiency in fracture reduction, more accurate radiographic alignment, and a nonsignificant trend toward lower complications compared to traditional freehand reduction. These results indicate that the double reverse traction-assisted technique is a feasible and promising alternative, but its definitive advantages need to be confirmed by larger, prospective, randomized controlled trials.

Keywords

closed fracture reduction / hexapod external fixator / open tibial shaft fracture / skeletal traction reduction

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Zhiming Zhao, Yuanyuan Geng, Bowen Shi, Jian Chen, Yabin Liu, Chengkuo Cai, Guoqi Ji, Weiguo Xu. Double Reverse Traction-Assisted Versus Traditional Freehand Closed Reduction With Hexapod External Fixator in Treating Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Retrospective Study. Orthopaedic Surgery, 2026, 18 (2) : 279-288 DOI:10.1111/os.70239

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

M. Ali, F. M. Reda, H. Abbassi, H. Issaoui, M. Gargouri, and F. Razanabola, “Management of a Severe Degloving Injury With a Type 2 Open Tibia Fracture Using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Instillation and Dwell Time,” Wounds 32, no. 12 (2020): E110–E113.

[2]

M. Shen and N. Tejwani, “Open Tibial Shaft Fracture Fixation Strategies: Intramedullary Nailing, External Fixation, and Plating,” OTA International 7, no. 4 suppl (2024): e316, https://doi.org/10.1097/oi9.0000000000000316.

[3]

A. Albushtra, A. H. Mohsen, K. A. Alnozaili, et al., “External Fixation as a Primary and Definitive Treatment for Complex Tibial Diaphyseal Fractures: An Underutilized and Efficacious Approach,” Orthopedic Research and Reviews 16 (2024): 75–84, https://doi.org/10.2147/orr.S450774.

[4]

D. K. Kisitu, N. N. O'Hara, G. P. Slobogean, et al., “Unreamed Intramedullary Nailing Versus External Fixation for the Treatment of Open Tibial Shaft Fractures in Uganda: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 36, no. 9 (2022): 349–357, https://doi.org/10.1097/bot.0000000000002362.

[5]

S. Lotzien, T. Rosteius, B. Jettkant, et al., “Locking the Taylor Spatial Frame—The Effect of Three Additional Longitudinal Rods on Osteotomy Site Movements,” Clinical Biomechanics 100 (2022): 105820, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105820.

[6]

J. Hogg, M. Hampton, and S. Madan, “Supra Tubercular Tibial Osteotomy and Gradual Correction With Taylor Spatial Frame for the Management of Torsional Malalignment Syndrome–Surgical Technique and Outcomes,” Knee 40 (2023): 8–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2022.11.004.

[7]

A. Tucker, A. R. Norrish, S. Fendius, et al., “Definitive Taylor Spatial Frame Management for the Treatment of High-Energy Open Tibial Fractures: Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes,” Injury 53, no. 12 (2022): 4104–4113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.10.019.

[8]

Z. Zhao, H. Shu, P. Jia, et al., “Hexaxial External Fixator Versus Intramedullary Nail in Treating Segmental Tibial Fractures: A Retrospective Study,” BMC Surgery 24, no. 1 (2024): 44, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02327-0.

[9]

B. K. Montgomery, E. O. Cidambi, C. M. Birch, et al., “Minimizing Surgeon Radiation Exposure During Operative Treatment of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures,” Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics 43, no. 7 (2023): 414–417, https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000002421.

[10]

J. L. Cummings, A. E. Rivera, D. E. Pereira, A. K. Oladeji, A. J. Landau, and P. Hosseinzadeh, “Nonoperative Management of Closed Displaced Tibia Shaft Fractures in Patients Under 18 Years of Age: Low Failure Rate,” Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics 42, no. 8 (2022): 421–426, https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000002206.

[11]

Y. Lu, B. Wang, B. Hu, et al., “Tibial Shaft Fractures Treated With Intramedullary Nailing and Reduction Device Assistance,” International Orthopaedics 44, no. 11 (2020): 2413–2420, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04718-3.

[12]

H. H. Lee, K. Y. Kang, S. Y. Sung, et al., “Femoral Neck Fractures Treated by Closed Reduction and Internal Fixation With the Double Fluoroscope Technique: A Preliminary Study,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 5 (2024): 1418, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051418.

[13]

F. Cao, X. Xie, Y. Hu, et al., “The Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Double Reverse Traction Repositor and Traction Table in the Reduction of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Retrospective Comparative Study,” Annals of Translational Medicine 10, no. 19 (2022): 1071, https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-4658.

[14]

X. Lian, K. Zhao, W. Chen, et al., “Application of a Double Reverse Traction Repositor in the Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing of Distal Femur Fractures,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 16, no. 1 (2021): 168, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02324-6.

[15]

D. Paley, M. A. Catagni, F. Argnani, A. Villa, G. B. Benedetti, and R. Cattaneo, “Ilizarov Treatment of Tibial Nonunions With Bone Loss,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 241 (1989): 146–165.

[16]

Y. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Tian, et al., “Double Reverse Traction Repositor Assisted Closed Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Treatment of Lateral Tibial Plateau Fractures Among the Elderly,” European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 50, no. 4 (2024): 1903–1910, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02561-4.

[17]

M. Yan, L. Kuang, J. Ni, et al., “Use of a Double Reverse Traction Repositor Versus a Traction Table for the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures: A Comparative Study,” Orthopaedic Surgery 13, no. 4 (2021): 1254–1261, https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12956.

[18]

W. Song, Y. Wang, W. Chen, et al., “The Comparison of the Effect of Double Reverse Traction Repositor (DRTR) and Traction Table Assisted Anterograde Intramedullary Nail in Treatment of Femoral Shaft Fractures,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 24, no. 1 (2023): 303, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06421-x.

[19]

H. Sun, P. Li, G. Du, et al., “Application of PVC Pipes as an Adjustable Bilateral Traction Device in Lower Limb Fractures,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 24, no. 1 (2023): 733, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06847-3.

[20]

R. Zhang, Y. Yin, S. Li, L. Jin, Z. Hou, and Y. Zhang, “Traction Table Versus Double Reverse Traction Repositor in the Treatment of Femoral Shaft Fractures,” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (2018): 5952, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24317-y.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

PDF (800KB)

0

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/