Department of Microrepair and Reconstructive Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, P.R. China.
Imaging Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, P.R. China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jul 25;19(1):430. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04938-y.
This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of intramedullary nailing (IMN), percutaneous external plate fixation (PEPF), and re-applied external fixation (REF) in the treatment of refracture at the consolidated docking site following the removal of external fixation in patients with tibial defects who had previously undergone the Ilizarov bone transport technique.
A retrospective review was performed on patients who received IMN, PEPF, or REF for refracture at the consolidated docking site subsequent to the removal of external fixation. A collection of data was made regarding the following parameters: age, gender, defect size, treatment methods, external fixation time (EFT), external fixation index (EFI), time of refracture (TOR) subsequent to fixation removal, and docking reunion time (DRT). Bone and functional outcomes were evaluated by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) scoring system and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) questionnaire.
The study included 14 males and 5 females with an average age of 38.1 ± 8.9 years (range, 26 to 55 years). Etiologies included post-traumatic osteomyelitis in 11 cases and post-traumatic bone loss in 8 cases. The median bone defect was 5.11 ± 0.87 cm (range, 3.8 to 6.8 cm). Following docking site refracture, 6 cases were treated with IMN, 8 with PEPF, and 5 with REF. All patients achieved both satisfactory bone union and functional outcomes, and there was no significant difference in preoperative baseline data or postoperative outcomes among the three groups.
IMN, PEPF, and REF were all demonstrated favorable postoperative bone and functional outcomes, suggesting their reliability as treatment options for managing docking site refracture following external fixation removal.
本研究旨在比较髓内钉(IMN)、经皮外钢板固定(PEPF)和重新应用外固定(REF)治疗在先前接受伊利扎洛夫骨搬运技术治疗的胫骨缺损患者外固定去除后出现的固定器移除后愈合部位再骨折的临床疗效。
回顾性分析了因固定器移除后愈合部位再骨折而接受 IMN、PEPF 或 REF 治疗的患者。收集了以下参数的数据:年龄、性别、缺损大小、治疗方法、外固定时间(EFT)、外固定指数(EFI)、固定器移除后再骨折时间(TOR)和愈合部位再连接时间(DRT)。通过伊利扎洛夫方法应用研究协会(ASAMI)评分系统和下肢功能量表(LEFS)问卷评估骨与功能结果。
研究纳入 14 例男性和 5 例女性,平均年龄 38.1±8.9 岁(范围,26 至 55 岁)。病因包括 11 例创伤后骨髓炎和 8 例创伤后骨丢失。中位数骨缺损为 5.11±0.87cm(范围,3.8 至 6.8cm)。在愈合部位再骨折后,6 例采用 IMN 治疗,8 例采用 PEPF 治疗,5 例采用 REF 治疗。所有患者均获得满意的骨愈合和功能结果,三组间术前基线数据和术后结果无显著差异。
IMN、PEPF 和 REF 均显示出良好的术后骨与功能结果,表明它们作为外固定去除后愈合部位再骨折的治疗选择具有可靠性。