Wang Xingkuan, Xiang Chao, Yan Caiping, Chen Qian, Chen Lu, Jiang Ke, Li Yuling
Department of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong Sichuan, 637002, P. R. China.
Laboratory of Biological Tissue Engineering and Digital Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong Sichuan, 637002, P. R. China.
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022 Aug 15;36(8):983-988. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202202073.
To investigate the effectiveness difference between bone transport with a locking plate (BTLP) and conventional bone transport with Ilizarov/Orthofix fixators in treatment of tibial defect.
The clinical data of 60 patients with tibial fractures who met the selection criteria between January 2016 and September 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, and patients were treated with BTLP (BTLP group, =20), Ilizarov fixator (Ilizarov group, =23), or Orthofix fixator (Orthofix group, =17) for bone transport. There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, time from injury to admission, length of bone defect, tibial fracture typing, and comorbidities between groups ( >0.05). The osteotomy time, the retention time of external fixator, the external fixation index, and the occurrence of postoperative complications were recorded and compared between groups. The bone healing and functional recovery were evaluated by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) criteria.
All patients of 3 groups were followed up 13-45 months, with a mean of 20.4 months. The osteotomy time was significantly shorter in the BTLP group than in the Ilizarov group, and the retention time of external fixator and the external fixation index were significantly lower in the BTLP group than in the Ilizarov and Orthofix groups ( <0.05). Twenty-two fractures healed in the Ilizarov group and 1 case of delayed healing; 16 fractures healed in the Orthofix group and 1 case of delayed healing; 18 fractures healed in the BTLP group and 2 cases of delayed healing. There was no significant difference between groups in fracture healing distribution ( =0.824). After completing bone reconstruction treatment according to ASAMI criteria, the BTLP group had better bone healing than the Orthofix group and better function than the Ilizarov groups, showing significant differences ( <0.05). Postoperative complications occurred in 4 cases (20%) in the BLTP group, 18 cases (78%) in the Ilizarov group, and 12 cases (70%) in the Orthofix group. The incidence of complication in the BTLP group was significantly lower than that in other groups ( <0.05).
BTLP is safe and effective in the treatment of tibial defects. BTLP has apparent advantages over the conventional bone transport technique in osteotomy time, external fixation index, and lower limb functional recovery.
探讨锁定钢板骨搬运(BTLP)与采用伊里扎洛夫/奥托菲克斯外固定架的传统骨搬运治疗胫骨缺损的疗效差异。
回顾性分析2016年1月至2020年9月间60例符合入选标准的胫骨骨折患者的临床资料,患者分别采用BTLP(BTLP组,n = 20)、伊里扎洛夫外固定架(伊里扎洛夫组,n = 23)或奥托菲克斯外固定架(奥托菲克斯组,n = 17)进行骨搬运。各组间在性别、年龄、受伤原因、受伤至入院时间、骨缺损长度、胫骨骨折分型及合并症方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。记录并比较各组的截骨时间、外固定架保留时间、外固定指数及术后并发症发生情况。采用伊里扎洛夫方法研究与应用协会(ASAMI)标准评估骨愈合及功能恢复情况。
3组患者均获随访13 - 45个月,平均20.4个月。BTLP组截骨时间显著短于伊里扎洛夫组,BTLP组外固定架保留时间及外固定指数显著低于伊里扎洛夫组和奥托菲克斯组(P<0.05)。伊里扎洛夫组22例骨折愈合,1例延迟愈合;奥托菲克斯组16例骨折愈合,1例延迟愈合;BTLP组18例骨折愈合,2例延迟愈合。各组骨折愈合分布差异无统计学意义(P = 0.824)。按照ASAMI标准完成骨重建治疗后,BTLP组骨愈合情况优于奥托菲克斯组,功能优于伊里扎洛夫组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。BTLP组术后并发症4例(20%),伊里扎洛夫组18例(78%),奥托菲克斯组12例(70%)。BTLP组并发症发生率显著低于其他组(P<0.05)。
BTLP治疗胫骨缺损安全有效。BTLP在截骨时间、外固定指数及下肢功能恢复方面较传统骨搬运技术具有明显优势。