Infrapatellar Versus Suprapatellar Nailing for Fractures of the Tibia (INSURT Study): A Multicentered Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare suprapatellar and infrapatellar tibial nail insertion approaches on postoperative knee pain. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Multicentered academic level 1 trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Included were all patients 18-65 years of age with nailing OTA/AO type 42 and 43A fractures amenable to and indicated for repair with reamed intramedullary nailing. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Patients were randomized to receive a tibial intramedullary nail through either a suprapatellar or infrapatellar approach. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) for knee pain after kneeling for 60 seconds. The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1.6-point difference in the VAS for pain on kneeling, which was considered clinically significant. Secondary outcomes included the Aberdeen Kneeling Test and Aberdeen Standing Test (objective measures of weight-bearing capacity while kneeling and standing), Lysholm score, EQ-5D score, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). The outcomes were recorded at 6 weeks, 4 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: In total, 254 patients were randomized with 128 patients randomized to suprapatellar nailing and 117 patients randomized to infrapatellar nailing. In total, 96 patients (68.8% male) in the suprapatellar group (mean age 42.4 years, range 18-60 years) and 93 patients (69.2% male) in the infrapatellar group (mean age 38.8 years, range 19-52 years) completed 2-year follow-up. The VAS after kneeling for 60 seconds in the suprapatellar group was lower than that in the infrapatellar group at 6 weeks (4.1 vs. 5.2 P = 0.012), 4 months (2.8 vs. 4.1 P = 0.0003), 6 months (2.2 vs. 3.2 P = 0.0041), and 1 year (1.4 vs. 2.7 P = 0.0021) postoperatively and was statistically significant but not clinically significant. The Aberdeen Kneeling Test demonstrated that patients who underwent suprapatellar nailing could bear significantly more weight through their operative knee compared with the infrapatellar treatment group at 6 weeks (36% vs. 27% P = 0.0004), 4 months (45% vs. 41% P = 0.0012), 6 months (47% vs. 43% P = 0.001), 1 year (49% vs. 45% P = 0.0007), and 2 years (50% vs. 46% P = 0.001) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinically significant difference between suprapatellar and infrapatellar nailing in terms of VAS knee pain or patient-reported outcome measures. Patients in the suprapatellar cohort could bear more weight through their operative knee up to and including 2 years postsurgery. Patients should be counseled on the ability to kneel and the nail insertion method when considering nail insertion technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".