Distraction osteogenesis versus induced membrane technique for infected tibial non-unions with segmental bone loss: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of available studies.

INTRODUCTION

Infected tibial non-unions with associated bone loss can be challenging to manage. At present, the two main methods utilized in the management of these fractures include the Ilizarov technique of Distraction Osteogenesis (DO) using external fixator devices, or alternatively, the Induced Membrane Technique (IMT), devised by Masquelet. As there is a paucity of data directly comparing the outcomes of these techniques, there is no universal agreement on which strategy a surgeon should choose to use.

AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the outcomes of both DO and IMT, in terms of primary outcomes (bone union and infection elimination), and secondary outcomes (complication rates and functional outcomes).

METHODS

A PRISMA strategy was used. Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar library databases were interrogated using pre-defined MeSH terms and Boolean operators. Quality of evidence was evaluated using OCEBM and GRADE systems.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies with 1136 subjects met the inclusion criteria. With respect to the primary outcomes of interest, union was observed in 94.6% (DO method) and 88.0% (IMT method); this difference, however, was not significant between the two techniques (p = 0.45). In addition, infection elimination rates were also higher in the Ilizarov DO group when compared to Masquelet (Mq) IMT (93.0% vs 80.4% respectively). Again, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.06). For all secondary outcomes assessed (unplanned re-operations, re-fracture rates amputation rate), no statistically significant differences were documented between the treatment options.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that there is no clinical difference in outcomes for patients treated with Ilizarov DO versus Mq IMT techniques. The evidence base at present is relatively sparse and, therefore, we would recommend for further Level I studies to be conducted, to make more meaningful conclusions.