Clinical strategies at the docking site of distraction osteogenesis: are open procedures superior to the simple compression of Ilizarov?

This retrospective review reports on forty-five tibial non-unions who underwent docking site treatment for non-union using closed versus open and endoscopic strategies. In this cohort of patients, all but twelve were infected non-unions. Sixteen patients initially treated with single compression were compared to twenty-three patients treated with open revision of the docking site, and six endoscopic procedures. In the single compression group, an average of 6.4 cm of bone was resected and index lengthening was 2.01. In the open revision group, a mean of 9.4 cm was resected and the index lengthening was 1.72. In the endoscopic group, an average of 8.6 cm of bone was resected and index lengthening was 1.71. Consolidation at the docking site occurred in 41 cases out of 45 following the first procedure. There was no statistical difference between the three groups. Conclusive evidence of superiority of one modality of treatment over the other cannot be drawn from our data. The simple compression procedure requires less invasive surgery and is probably less demanding and more cost-effective in short transports, although the two cases of failure due to recurrence of sepsis were observed after this procedure. Further studies are desirable to investigate the effectiveness of open docking site grating procedures.