Nie Shao-Bo, Wu Tao-Guang, Hao Ming, Wang Kun, Ji Hui, Zhang Qun
Department of Orthopaedics Medicine, the Fourth Medical Center, PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100048, China.
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2022 Oct 25;35(10):908-13. doi: 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2022.10.002.
To compare treatment effect of monolateral and circular external fixator in infectious tibial nonunion and to explore external fixation structure with better osteogenic ability and fewer complications.
A retrospective analysis was performed on 150 patients with infectious tibial nonunion admitted from January 2010 to December 2014. Patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were divided into monolateral fixator group and circular fixator group according to the type of external fixation. Demographic and perioperative data of the two groups were collected. New bone quality was assessed by pixels ratio, treatment effect was assessed by complications. Notes for treatment was explored by case analysis.
A total of 64 patients with infectious mid-tibial nonunion were included, 26 in monolateral fixator group and 38 in circular fixator group. There was no difference in demographic data between two groups. The pixel ratio of new bone between two groups was from 0.91 to 0.97 with an average of (0.94±0.03), and from 0.93 to 0.97 with an average of(0.95±0.02), respectively, with no statistical significance (>0.05). The external fixation index was from 34.1 to 50.6 with an average of (42.3±8.3) days /cm in monolateral fixator group and from 44.5 to 56.1 with an average of (45.8±10.3) days/cm in the circular fixator group, and the difference was not statistically significant (>0.05). There were 7 cases (26.9%) of complications in monolateral fixator group and 5 cases (13.2%) in circular fixator group, the difference was not statistically significant (>0.05), but 5 cases of foot ptosis in monolateral fixator group and none in circular fixator group. The time of weight bearing in monolateral fixator group was later than that in circular fixator group, and the difference was statistically significant (<0.05).
Monolateral and circular fixators can achieve equivalent bone formation in the treatment of infected tibial nonunion. Circular fixator is recommended for patients with severe osteoporosis or concomitant medical diseases requiring early weight bearing. Hydroxyapatite coated screws are recommended if a monolateral external fixator is selected when the expected enlarged length is long and the fixation time is long and close monitoring of the ankle movement is required to avoid foot droop.
比较单侧与环形外固定器治疗感染性胫骨骨不连的效果,探讨成骨能力更佳且并发症更少的外固定结构。
对2010年1月至2014年12月收治的150例感染性胫骨骨不连患者进行回顾性分析。符合纳入及排除标准的患者根据外固定类型分为单侧固定器组和环形固定器组。收集两组的人口统计学及围手术期数据。通过像素比评估新生骨质量,通过并发症评估治疗效果。通过病例分析探索治疗要点。
共纳入64例感染性胫骨中段骨不连患者,单侧固定器组26例,环形固定器组38例。两组人口统计学数据无差异。两组新生骨像素比分别为0.91至0.97,平均(0.94±0.03),以及0.93至0.97,平均(0.95±0.02),差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。单侧固定器组外固定指数为34.1至50.6,平均(42.3±8.3)天/cm,环形固定器组为44.5至56.1,平均(45.8±10.3)天/cm,差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。单侧固定器组并发症7例(26.9%),环形固定器组5例(13.2%),差异无统计学意义(>0.05),但单侧固定器组有5例足下垂,环形固定器组无。单侧固定器组负重时间晚于环形固定器组,差异有统计学意义(<0.05)。
单侧和环形固定器在治疗感染性胫骨骨不连时可实现同等的骨形成。对于重度骨质疏松或伴有需要早期负重的内科疾病患者,推荐使用环形固定器。若选择单侧外固定器且预期延长长度长、固定时间长,建议使用羟基磷灰石涂层螺钉,并密切监测踝关节活动以避免足下垂。