Clinical outcomes of intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures caused by low-energy gunshot versus Gustilo-Anderson type I tibial shaft fractures
| dc.contributor.author | Bayram, Berhan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Akcaalan, Serhat | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yozgatli, Tahir Koray | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tanriverdi, Bulent | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bilgili, Mustafa Gokhan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kocaoglu, Baris | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-11-05T11:07:56Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background Tibial shaft fractures caused by low-energy gunshot injuries represent a rare but challenging clinical problem. The optimal treatment approach, particularly in comparison with Gustilo-Anderson Type I open fractures, remains controversial. Methods This was a retrospective comparative study that included patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures. Group 1 consisted of low-energy gunshot-induced fractures, while Group 2 included Gustilo-Anderson Type I open fractures. Demographic data, union time, Radiographic Union Score for Tibial Fractures (RUST), Johner-Wruhs functional classification, need for additional surgical intervention, and infection rates were compared. Results A total of 128 patients were included (68 in Group 1 and 60 in Group 2). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding demographic characteristics, follow-up duration, union time, RUST scores, or Johner-Wruhs functional outcomes (p > 0.05). However, the infection rate was significantly higher in the low-energy gunshot group compared with the Gustilo-Anderson type I group (20.6% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.020).Nonunion and reoperation rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion Intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures caused by low-energy gunshot injuries provides clinical and radiological outcomes comparable to those observed in Gustilo-Anderson type I open fractures. Nevertheless, these injuries appear to be associated with a higher risk of infection, warranting careful perioperative management and closer postoperative surveillance. | |
| dc.description.issue | 1 | |
| dc.description.pages | 414 | |
| dc.description.volume | 21 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s13018-026-06916-y | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1749-799X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-026-06916-y | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://openaccess.acibadem.edu.tr/handle/11443/11498 | |
| dc.identifier.wos | WOS:001823922500005 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | BMC | |
| dc.relation.hasversion | 10.1186/s13018-026-06916-y | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH | |
| dc.subject | Tibial shaft fracture | |
| dc.subject | Low-energy gunshot injury | |
| dc.subject | Intramedullary nailing | |
| dc.subject | Gustilo-Anderson Type I | |
| dc.subject | Infection | |
| dc.subject | LONG-BONES | |
| dc.subject | COMPLICATIONS | |
| dc.subject | WOUNDS | |
| dc.subject | Orthopedics | |
| dc.title | Clinical outcomes of intramedullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures caused by low-energy gunshot versus Gustilo-Anderson type I tibial shaft fractures | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| oaire.citation.edition | Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 1 | |
| oaire.citation.volume | 21 | |
| person.identifier.rid | HIK-1232-2022 | |
| person.identifier.rid | IAN-3404-2023 | |
| person.identifier.rid | GRO-2123-2022 | |
| person.identifier.rid | W-7954-2018 | |
| person.identifier.rid | LDF-0758-2024 |
