Department of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China.
Sci Rep. 2024 Apr 5;14(1):7982. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-58548-z.
How to deal with large tibial bone defects is still controversial. The purpose of this research was to compare the semi-focal bone transport (SFBT) technique with traditional bone transport (TBT) technique for treating such patients. Sixty-two patients were included and retrospectively analyzed. In all cases, after radical debridement large tibial bone defects remained. Patients were treated by the SFBT or TBT technique. The distraction, consolidation duration and complications were recorded by the patients' medical files. Based on the Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) standard, the bone and functional results were evaluated. The mean bone defect size was 7.7 ± 1.6 cm and 7.5 ± 2.1 cm for SFBT and TBT patients. The mean external fixation index (EFI) was 1.51 ± 0.14 months/cm and 1.89 ± 0.25 months/cm for SFBT and TBT patients (p < 0.05), respectively. With respect to bone and function results, there was no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of complications per patient was 1.1 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.7 for SFBT and TBT patients (p < 0.05). Compared to the traditional bone transport technique, patients using the semi-focal bone transport technique achieved better clinical effects, including shorter EFI and less complications. Therefore, the SFBT technique could be a new option for patients with large tibial bone defects.
如何处理大段胫骨骨缺损仍然存在争议。本研究旨在比较半焦骨搬运（SFBT）技术与传统骨搬运（TBT）技术治疗此类患者的效果。共纳入 62 例患者进行回顾性分析。所有患者在根治性清创后均遗留大段胫骨骨缺损。患者分别采用 SFBT 或 TBT 技术治疗。患者的病历记录了牵引、骨愈合时间和并发症等情况。根据国际伊利扎洛夫外固定协会（ASAMI）标准评估骨和功能结果。SFBT 和 TBT 患者的平均骨缺损大小分别为 7.7±1.6cm 和 7.5±2.1cm。SFBT 和 TBT 患者的平均外固定指数（EFI）分别为 1.51±0.14 个月/cm 和 1.89±0.25 个月/cm（p<0.05）。在骨和功能结果方面，两组间无显著差异（p>0.05）。SFBT 和 TBT 患者的平均并发症数分别为 1.1±0.6 和 1.6±0.7（p<0.05）。与传统骨搬运技术相比，采用半焦骨搬运技术的患者具有更好的临床效果，包括更短的 EFI 和更少的并发症。因此，SFBT 技术可能是大段胫骨骨缺损患者的一种新选择。
