Wumaierjiang Yiliyaer, Hamiti Yimurang, Yalikun Ainizier, Yusufu Aihemaitijiang
Department of Microsurgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830054, China.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025 Feb 20;26(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s12891-025-08381-w.
Bone lengthening and free vascularized fibula graft (FVFG) represent two prevalent modalities for bone defect repair. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy disparities between FVFG and single - segmental bone lengthening (BL) when the Orthofix external fixator was utilized in the treatment process.
The follow - up data of 72 patients with femoral defects, who received treatment from January 2009 to May 2019, were collected for retrospective analysis. Among them, 60 comparable patients were stratified into two groups: one group of 30 patients received free vascularized fibular graft in combination with Orthofix external fixation (FVFG group), and the other group of 30 patients underwent single - segmental bone lengthening using the Orthofix external fixator (BL group). The specific aspects evaluated encompassed operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score, assessment by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI), limb length discrepancy (LLD), external fixation index, bone union status, and complications.
1.Surgical - related indicators: The mean operation time in the FVFG group ( 5.04 ± 1.22 h) was significantly longer than that in the BL group (1.58 ± 0.56 h, p<0.001). The intraoperative blood loss (450 ± 190.73 ml) in the FVFG group was substantially higher than that in the BL group (120 ± 46.23 ml, p<0.01). Although the duration of external fixator use in the FVFG group (16.9 ± 3.52 months) was marginally longer than that in the BL group (15.53 ± 2.09 months), this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.073). 2.Postoperative complications: According to the Paley classification system, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of nail infection, nail loosening, limb edema, nonunion (including nonunion in the BL group and fibula nonunion in the FVFG group), and postoperative fractures. All complications were effectively managed through appropriate treatment strategies. 3.Functional evaluation: Based on the ASAMI criteria, the excellent - to - good rate of bone outcomes in the FVFG group was 80.0%, while the BL group demonstrated superior results (p = 0.028). The excellent - to - good rate of limb function in the FVFG group was 36.6%, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.537).
For the treatment of femoral defects measuring ≥ 6 cm, single - segmental bone lengthening with the Orthofix external fixator exhibited advantages in terms of shorter operation time and reduced blood loss compared to FVFG combined with the Orthofix external fixator. Although other outcomes were comparable between the two groups, FVFG demonstrated broader applicability across diverse bone defect classifications, primarily constrained by the defect length and the vascular condition of the recipient site.
骨延长术和游离血管化腓骨移植术(FVFG)是骨缺损修复的两种常用方式。本研究的目的是比较在治疗过程中使用Orthofix外固定器时,FVFG与单节段骨延长术(BL)之间的疗效差异。
收集2009年1月至2019年5月接受治疗的72例股骨缺损患者的随访数据进行回顾性分析。其中,60例具有可比性的患者被分为两组:一组30例患者接受游离血管化腓骨移植联合Orthofix外固定(FVFG组),另一组30例患者使用Orthofix外固定器进行单节段骨延长(BL组)。评估的具体方面包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后日常生活活动(ADL)评分、伊利扎洛夫方法研究与应用协会(ASAMI)的评估、肢体长度差异(LLD)、外固定指数、骨愈合状况和并发症。
1.手术相关指标:FVFG组的平均手术时间(5.04±1.22小时)显著长于BL组(1.58±0.56小时,p<0.001)。FVFG组的术中出血量(450±190.73毫升)显著高于BL组(120±46.23毫升,p<0.01)。虽然FVFG组外固定器使用时间(16.9±3.52个月)略长于BL组(15.53±2.09个月),但差异无统计学意义(p=0.073)。2.术后并发症:根据Paley分类系统,两组在钉道感染、钉松动、肢体水肿、骨不连(包括BL组的骨不连和FVFG组的腓骨骨不连)和术后骨折方面无显著差异。所有并发症均通过适当的治疗策略得到有效处理。3.功能评估:根据ASAMI标准,FVFG组骨愈合优良率为80.0%,而BL组结果更佳(p=0.028)。FVFG组肢体功能优良率为36.6%,两组间无显著差异(p=0.537)。
对于治疗长度≥6厘米的股骨缺损,与FVFG联合Orthofix外固定器相比,使用Orthofix外固定器进行单节段骨延长术在手术时间较短和出血量减少方面具有优势。虽然两组的其他结果相当,但FVFG在不同骨缺损分类中的适用性更广,主要受缺损长度和受区血管条件的限制。