Introduction
The treatment of tibial shaft fractures with intramedullary nailing has been the golden standard in the surgical treatment of tibia fractures for decades [
1,
2]. While excellent results with low complication rates are described, one of the few complications is the anterior knee pain, which is described with a heterogeneous incidence of 10–80% [
3‐
6]. So far, most prominent reasons for anterior knee pain seems to lie in the nail entry point, the nail protrusion and the damage to soft-tissue structures such as the intrameniscal ligament, however, focusing on the nail entry point. One reason might be the iatrogenic soft tissue injury via the entry point [
7‐
9]. Therefore, both the parapatellar- or suprapatellar entry have been described as alternative approaches. The parapatellar approach avoids the injury of the patellar tendon, however, an increased retropatellar contact force is described, which might lead to an increased osteochondral injury [
4]. In a review article by Goa et al. no differences in a supra- or infrapatellar approach could be stated [
6]. The stated retropatellar scaring might result in a reduced clinical function and elevated pain levels [
10]. From patients after total knee arthroplasty, we know that the relation of joint line to patella height is one major factor influencing postoperative function and patient’s satisfaction. Whereas, on the one hand, a patella pseudo baja, with a raised joint line and relatively lowered patella, is known to negatively influence postoperative function, the influence of a true patella baja (PB) due to scarring of the patellar tendon and its retinacula has so far remained of minor importance [
11]. However, we know from various studies on knee arthroplasty that a not inconsiderable part of anterior knee pain is caused, by access morbidity and the development of a PB [
11]. Focusing back on patients with intramedullary nailing at the knee, only limited data exist reporting a development of PB in a case of retrograde nailing of the femur and one study after IM nailing of the tibia [
10,
12]. Although the second study, including 33 patients after tibial nailing, observed a development of postoperative PB compared to the healthy side, no difference in anterior knee pain could be observed [
12].
The aim of this study is therefore to determine the effect of intramedullary nailing of proximal (type 41-A2 and -A3 according to AO) and diaphyseal tibial fractures (type 42-A to -C according to AO) via an infrapatellar/transtendinous approach, on the sagittal patellofemoral alignment, to evaluate the knee joint function.
Discussion
In our retrospective analysis of a single canter study in a cohort of 78 patients, we had two major observations. First, we could observe PB with an incidence of 10.3%. And secondly, those patients with a postoperative PB showed a significant worse outcome in patellofemoral specific functional score. Preoperative ISI did not predict worse postoperative ISI or worse postoperative subjective knee function.
Although, intramedullary nailing is a well-established and successful treatment option for patients with tibial shaft fractures a high complication rate of 10–80% of the patients who suffer anterior knee pain is described [
3‐
6]. Several reasons for anterior knee pain have been described and one major reason is the iatrogenic soft tissue damage with potential painful scarring resulting in a shortening of the patellar tendon [
12]. Turkmen et al. could show that a shorter patellar tendon can be observed in patients after intramedullary nailing on the operated side, compared to the non-operated side [
12]. Contradictory to Turkmen et al. we did not observe a general postoperative shortening of the patellar tendon compared to preoperative x-ray images [
12]. One reason might be the inherent inaccuracy of the radiological imaging. For reproducible lateral x-ray images, a 30° knee flexion is needed. However, due to initial posttraumatic pain at the fracture side this might not have been possible in any case. Furthermore, compared to Turkmen et al. we did observe worse subjective function and knee pain in patients with patella baja [
12]. One reason might be the measured score. Both scores, the Lysholm score and the Kujala score are validated convergent scores. Although a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined so far, both scores are validated for knee pain [
21]. However, most importantly, out of 100 points in the Lysholm score, 60 points are not specifically focused on pain and instability in the patellofemoral joint, making this score a valuable interpreter of general knee function but less for interpretation of specific anterior knee pain [
24]. Likewise to the Lysholm score, the German version of the Kujala score was validated, too [
23]. However, it is focused and validated specifically for anterior knee pain. Likewise, to the Lysholm score the Kujala score ranges from 0 to 100 with high scores indicating good outcome. Whereas in healthy controls an average score of 99.9 is reported, patients with anterior knee pain report an average score of 82.8 and patients with patella instability report an average score of 62.2. Interestingly, the general Kujala score in our collective, with 78 ± 17 points, was even worse than in in the stated literature indicating a general higher degree of anterior knee pain in our collective. For interpretation of differences between the groups the minimal detectable change (MDC) was 13 points (CI = 95%) for the Kujala score. Therefore a change of at least 13 is needed to reflect a true change between the groups [
25]. Therefore, our observed difference of 16 points between patients with PB (54 ± 18) and patients without PB (80 ± 14) is not only statistically significant but also a detectable clinical difference between both groups. Comparing the Lysholm score between both groups significant worse scores were observed in patients with PB and patients without PB. Interestingly both scores showed significant worse scores concerning questions on knee pain.
Another reason which has to be discussed is the potential iatrogenic injury via the entry point [
7,
8]. In an eight year long term follow up of an randomized controlled trail comparing transpatellar- and parapatellar approach no differences in the rate of anterior knee pain could be observed [
26]. However, the parapatellar approach results in an increased retropatellar contact force which might lead to an increased osteochondral injury via the parapatellar approach [
4]. Furthermore, in a review article by Goa et al. no differences in a supra- or infrapatellar approach could be stated [
6]. However, the authors state that no longtime follow up exists on the longtime results of possible retropatellar injuries. While a general trend towards a better outcome for a suprapatellar than for the infrapatellar/transtendinous entry point for the nail is described in a meta-analysis comparing the two methods, any iatrogenic retropatellar cartilage damage is yet ignored, so that the infrapatellar/transtendinous approach is still used most often [
6].
We could show, that a significant association of postoperative development of PB, is associated with a worse Kujala- and Lysholm score and a higher general pain level. Therefore, we believe that to a certain degree the development of PB after tibial nailing via infrapatellar/transtendinous entry point should be avoided. As one therapeutic option we would suggest careful reconstruction of anatomical structures with suture of patella tendon sheet and subcutaneous skin closure. Weather this might reduce the rate of PB and reduce the rate of anterior knee pain needs to be evaluated in further studies.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the high rate of patients with no clinical scoring (62%). Second, preoperative lateral knee x-ray are not always performed in 30° flexed knees, decreasing the accuracy of the radiological measurement. This study has also important strengths. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to evaluate pre- and postoperative patella baja showing, that the preoperative patellar position is no individual indicator for worse postoperative knee function. Moreover, we did a post hoc power analysis showing a high power of 90.6% for Kujala score and even more for Lysholm score with 97%.