OBJECTIVES: 

To assess if a suprapatellar (SP) approach, when compared with an infrapatellar (IP) approach, yielded less patient-reported anterior knee pain and higher patellofemoral joint function at 6 weeks and 12 months postoperatively, when treating tibial fractures with intramedullary nailing.

METHODS:  Design: 

Prospective, parallel-group randomized control trial.

Setting: 

Tertiary level 1 trauma care center, Brisbane, Australia.

Patients Selection Criteria: 

Skeletally mature patients with an acute diaphyseal tibial fracture (AO/OTA 41A2/3, 42 A1-43A3) amenable to an intramedullary nailing were included. Exclusion criteria were periprosthetic fractures, nonunions, and presence of a contralateral injury that would restrict weight-bearing.

Outcome Measures and Comparisons: 

Anterior knee pain through the visual analog scale (VAS) and patellofemoral function using the Kujala scale at 6 weeks and 12 months were compared between those treated with a SP and IP approach.

Results: 

Ninety-five tibia fractures were included in the randomized trial, with complete follow-up data for 44 and 46 tibia fractures in the SP and IP groups, respectively. The SP cohort exhibited better patellofemoral knee function at both 6 weeks (Kajula 53.0 for SP vs. 43.2 for IP, P < 0.01) and 12 months (Kujala 92.0 for SP vs. 81.3 for IP, P < 0.01) postoperatively and a reduction in anterior knee pain at 12 months postoperatively (VAS 0.7 SP vs. 2.9 IP, P < 0.01).

Conclusions: 

This randomized trial demonstrated clinically meaningful differences in patellofemoral function, for a SP versus IP approach, with a greater than 10 point discrepancy in Kujala score at both 6 weeks and 12 months. In addition, there was a clinically important difference in VAS knee pain scores for patients at 12 months, but not at 6 weeks, postoperatively. These results contribute to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the functional and clinical benefits of the SP approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.