The efficacy of ilizarov method for management of long tibial bone and soft tissue defect.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement: The authors stated that there is no conflict of interest to disclose. 9. J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Oct;33(10):e372-e377. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001514. Bifocal Compression-Distraction for Combined Bone and Soft-Tissue Defects in Post-traumatic Tibial Nonunion. Thakeb MF(1), Fayyad TA(1), ElGebeily MA(1), Diab RA(1), El Zahlawy H(1), Sharafeldin MS(2), Al Kersh MA(1). Author information: (1)Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. (2)Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, El-Helal Hospital, Cairo, Egypt. OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 distraction osteogenesis techniques in post-traumatic tibial nonunion patients with composite bone and soft-tissue defects. DESIGN: Nonrandomized prospective, case series, single-center study. SETTING: Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Limb Reconstruction Unit, El-Helal hospital, Cairo, Egypt. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty post-traumatic tibial nonunion patients with composite bone and soft-tissue defects. INTERVENTION: Twenty-five patients were treated using bone transport (BT) technique, and 25 patients were treated using acute shortening (AS) and distraction technique. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The external fixation index (EFI); functional and bone results; and complication rates. RESULTS: All patients were followed for a minimum of 18 months after removal of their Ilizarov frame. AS and BT groups were followed up for a mean of 19.7 and 20.3 months, respectively. The mean bone gap after resection and debridement was 4 cm in AS group and 5.9 cm in BT group (P = 0.06). The mean EFI was statistically significant and lower in the AS group compared with BT group (P = 0.03). There were no other statistically significant differences between either intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques achieved comparable good to excellent results, and the differences in number of complications and ASAMI scores for bone or function were not statistically significant. Yet, it appears that the AS technique may be superior because it has a significantly lower EFI. This may not be feasible in all cases, however, because the AS technique is limited by the defect size and the condition of the surrounding soft tissues. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001514