Bone Transport versus Acute Shortening for the Management of Infected Tibial Non-Unions with Bone Defects

Publication date: Available online 12 July 2017
Source:Injury
Author(s): Kevin Tetsworth, Cengiz Sen, John E. Herzenberg, Matthew Jaffe, Dean C. Maar, Vaida Glatt, Dror Paley, Erik Hohmann
IntroductionThis study compared bone transport to acute shortening/lengthening in a series of infected tibial segmental defects for infected tibial non-union.MethodsIn a retrospective comparative study 42 patients treated for infected tibial non-union with segmental bone loss measuring between 3 and 10cm were included. Group A was treated with bone transport and Group B with acute shortening/lengthening. All patients were treated by Ilizarov methods for gradual correction as bi-focal or tri-focal treatment; the treating surgeon selected either transport or acute shortening based on clinical considerations. The principle outcome measure was the external fixation index (EFI); secondary outcome measures included functional and bone results, and complication rates.ResultsThe mean size of the bone defect was 7cm in Group A, and 5.8cm in Group B. The mean time in external fixation in Group A was 12.5 months, and in Group B was 10.1 months. The external fixation index (EFI) measured 1.8 months/cm in Group A and 1.7 months/cm in Group B. Minor complications were 1.2 per patient in the transport group and 0.5 per patient in the acute shortening group (P=0.00001). Major complications were 1.0 per patient in the transport group versus 0.4 per patient in the acute shortening group (P=0.0002). Complications with permanent residual effects (sequelae) were 0.5 per patient in the transport group versus 0.3 per patient in the acute shortening group (P=0.28).ConclusionsWhile both techniques demonstrated excellent results, acute shortening/lengthening demonstrated a lower rate of complications and a slightly better radiographic outcome. Bone grafting of the docking site was often required with both procedures.Level of evidence: Level III; retrospective comparative study



http://ift.tt/2vhBY7A