Leif Pål Kristiansen1, Harald Steen, Olav Reikerås. 1. Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet Medical Center, Biomechanics Laboratory, Orthopaedic Department, University of Oslo, Oslo, NO-0027, Norway. leif.pal.kristiansen@rikshospitalet.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different methods and devices are used to perform lengthening and deformity reconstruction in the tibia. Recently, the Taylor spatial frame (TSF) has been introduced as a computer-assisted and versatile external ring fixator. Lengthening index (LI) and complications are important result parameters, and the aim of this study was to review our first 20 tibial segments operated with the TSF and to compare the results with our experience of using the traditional Ilizarov external fixator (IEF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We lengthened 20 tibial segments in 20 patients with the TSF. The results were compared with those of 27 tibial segments from 27 patients that were lengthened with the IEF. All segments were operated on with monofocal osteotomies. RESULTS: In the overlapping zone of comparable lengthening distances between 2.4 and 6.0 cm, the LI of 2.4 and 1.8 months/cm was not significantly different between the TSF and IEF groups, respectively (p = 0.17). This non-significant difference was confirmed after adjustment for age. INTERPRETATION: We found no difference between the TSF and IEF frames regarding LI and complication rate. However, rotational, translational, and residual deformity correction is easier to perform with the TSF.
BACKGROUND: Different methods and devices are used to perform lengthening and deformity reconstruction in the tibia. Recently, the Taylor spatial frame (TSF) has been introduced as a computer-assisted and versatile external ring fixator. Lengthening index (LI) and complications are important result parameters, and the aim of this study was to review our first 20 tibial segments operated with the TSF and to compare the results with our experience of using the traditional Ilizarov external fixator (IEF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We lengthened 20 tibial segments in 20 patients with the TSF. The results were compared with those of 27 tibial segments from 27 patients that were lengthened with the IEF. All segments were operated on with monofocal osteotomies. RESULTS: In the overlapping zone of comparable lengthening distances between 2.4 and 6.0 cm, the LI of 2.4 and 1.8 months/cm was not significantly different between the TSF and IEF groups, respectively (p = 0.17). This non-significant difference was confirmed after adjustment for age. INTERPRETATION: We found no difference between the TSF and IEF frames regarding LI and complication rate. However, rotational, translational, and residual deformity correction is easier to perform with the TSF.
Authors: S Robert Rozbruch; Kira Segal; Svetlana Ilizarov; Austin T Fragomen; Gabriel Ilizarov Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Ali Al Kaissi; Rudolf Ganger; Gabriel Mindler; Christoph Karner; Klaus Klaushofer; Franz Grill Journal: Afr J Paediatr Surg Date: 2015 Jan-Mar
Authors: Henrik Lundblad; Gerald Q Maguire; Henrik Olivecrona; Cathrine Jonsson; Hans Jacobsson; Marilyn E Noz; Michael P Zeleznik; Lars Weidenhielm; Anders Sundin Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2014-03-19