The Management of Tibial Bone Defects: A Multicenter Experience of Hexapod and Ilizarov Frames.
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews
ISSN: 2474-7661
Titre abrégé: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101724868
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2023
01 08 2023
Historique:
received:
07
02
2023
accepted:
09
06
2023
medline:
7
8
2023
pubmed:
3
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bone defects may be managed with bone transport or acute shortening and lengthening using circular external fixation devices. We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study to compare the outcomes between the Ilizarov frames and hexapod frames for the management of bone defects. Patients treated for bone defects using either Ilizarov or hexapod frames were included for analysis in two specialist institutions. Primary outcomes were time to consolidation, bone healing index (BHI), and external fixator index (EFI). Radiographic parameters included the medial proximal tibial angle, lateral distal tibial angle, posterior proximal tibial angle, and anterior distal tibial angle. There were 137 hexapods and 90 Ilizarov frames in total. The mean time to follow-up was 3.7 years in the hexapod group and 4.0 years in the Ilizarov group. Hexapods had a significantly lower time to consolidation (253 days versus 449 days) (P < 0.0001) and BHI (59.1 days/cm versus 87.5 days/cm) (P < 0.0001). Hexapods had a significantly better EFI (72.3 days/cm versus 96.1 days/cm) (P = 0.0009). Hexapods may confer a significant advantage over Ilizarov frames in the management of bone defects. Time to consolidation, radiographic parameters, BHI, and EFI are all superior in hexapods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37535816
doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-23-00033
pii: 01979360-202308000-00002
pmc: PMC10402980
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Références
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32(1):e12-e18
pubmed: 29257780
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Jul;31(7):393-399
pubmed: 28633150
J Orthop Res. 2006 Mar;24(3):339-47
pubmed: 16479566
J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Mar;20(3):197-205
pubmed: 16648701
J Child Orthop. 2014 May;8(3):273-9
pubmed: 24748544
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2003 Jan-Feb;141(1):92-8
pubmed: 12605337
Acta Orthop Belg. 2014 Sep;80(3):426-35
pubmed: 26280618
J Orthop Traumatol. 2019 Apr 16;20(1):22
pubmed: 30993461
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Jul 31;68:102645
pubmed: 34401130
Injury. 2022 Oct;53(10):3438-3445
pubmed: 36028372
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2016 Nov;11(3):153-159
pubmed: 27660248
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021 Nov 1;29(21):901-909
pubmed: 34288887
J Orthop Trauma. 2021 Jun 1;35(6):e189-e194
pubmed: 34006796
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Feb 24;2020:2716547
pubmed: 32185197
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Apr;470(4):1221-31
pubmed: 22143986
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2021 Sep-Dec;16(3):138-143
pubmed: 35111252
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Feb;22(2):88-95
pubmed: 18349775