Literature DB >> 23475382

Conversion of external fixation to internal fixation in a non-acute, reconstructive setting: a case series.

T Monni1, F F Birkholtz, P de Lange, C H Snyckers.   

Abstract

The aim of the study is to determine the outcomes in patients who underwent conversion from an external fixator to an internal fixation device. This is a retrospective review of 18 patients (24 limbs) who underwent conversion from external to internal fixation. The patients had external fixators applied for traumatic bone defects or congenital deformities. Conversion to internal fixation was performed for reasons of patient dissatisfaction with external fixation, pin track sepsis, persistent non-union or refracture. The complexity of cases was graded using Paley's level of difficulty score. Patients were either converted acutely or delayed. Internal fixation devices were either intramedullary nails or plate and screws. Outcome was regarded as excellent if the patients were fully weight-bearing and pain-free on a mechanically well-aligned limb and without need for further surgery: good if the patient required subsequent surgery to achieve union and poor if irreversible complications occurred. Acute conversions (fixator removal and introduction of internal fixation device at same surgery) were done in 19 limbs and delayed conversion (interval between fixator removal and internal fixation) in 5. In the acute group, 17 limbs (89.4 %) had at least a good outcome, 16 of these limbs had an excellent result. Two limbs (10.6 %) had a poor result and required amputation. Both cases were after acute conversion to intramedullary nails; the original presenting diagnosis was of an infected non-union of the tibia and both had Paley scores above 7. In the delayed conversion group, all limbs (100 %) had at least a good outcome, with 4 limbs (80 %) having an excellent result. The mean external fixator time was 185 days (61-370). Both the cases with poor outcomes had longer external fixation times. This series supports the practice of conversion of external fixation to internal fixation with the majority of patients attaining good results. It identifies that plate devices appear to produce fewer deep sepsis complications, as compared to intramedullary nails, particularly when the original presenting diagnosis is a septic non-union.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 23475382      PMCID: PMC3623921          DOI: 10.1007/s11751-013-0157-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr        ISSN: 1828-8928


Introduction

Despite the versatility of distraction osteogenesis in limb reconstruction surgery, prolonged external fixation is uncomfortable for the patient and has associated complications [1, 2, 8, 9, 14]. Methods to decrease frame time have been developed; these include lengthening over a nail [3, 4, 7, 11, 15] and lengthening with submuscular plating [5, 6, 12] from which patients have shown improved comfort and recovery of joint range of motion. The risk of combining external and internal fixation is deep infection. This is documented to be 3–15 % [11, 13]. There is no consensus as to which internal fixation method, when used after external fixation, leads to better results. Rozbruch et al. [16] suggested that the reaming through the regenerate enhances bone healing but was concerned over the infection risk with use of intramedullary nails. He felt it important to pay special attention to the placement of external fixator pins to avoid contact between the nail and the pin sites. His reported deep infection rate was 2.5 %. He went on to investigate the technique of lengthening then plating. He found a decreased frame time but no deep infections [17]. Uysal et al. [10] believed that both the endosteal and periosteal blood supplies are preserved with this technique. However, Rozbruch et al. [17] did note a high incidence of varus deformity. The literature is limited on the subject of sequential use of internal fixation after external fixation in post-traumatic limb reconstruction and deformity correction. The technique would decrease frame time in the treatment for post-traumatic bone loss and non-unions as well as deformity corrections and prove valuable but has the risk for complications.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective case series on 18 patients (24 limbs) who underwent sequential conversion from external to internal fixation in the period 2007–2011. All patients who underwent distraction osteogenesis for traumatic bone loss, sepsis or for the correction of deformities and had internal fixation applied prior to union or regenerate consolidation were included. There were no specific exclusion criteria. Patients were grouped according to the timing of conversion from external to internal fixation as well the type of internal fixation used. The following groups were defined: The acute conversion group consisted of patients who underwent removal of the external fixator device and insertion of internal fixation at the same surgical procedure. The operation also consisted of debridement of the external fixation pin tracks and careful placement of the internal fixation device with care to avoid contact with the previous external fixation pin sites. The delayed conversion group consisted of patients who underwent separate procedures for removal of external fixation and placement of the internal fixation device. Debridement of external fixation pin tracks was done during the first procedure. Stability in the interval between procedures was achieved by various methods including traction, plaster of Paris and functional braces. This was individualized according to site and stability. This interval varied and the secondary procedure was performed when the surgeon deemed the pin tracks to be healed with no infection. The internal fixation devices were either intramedullary nails or plates and screws. An available scoring system to allow for sample description or classification was not identified. We chose to adopt Paley’s level of difficulty score for femoral lengthening in which 11 variables are separately evaluated and include not only host and local factors but also the complexity of correction (Table 1).
Table 1

Paley’s level of difficulty score [4]

Points scored0123
Age5–1920–29, 0–430–50>50
Complexity of correction of deformity at level of lengtheningNone

Angulation >5° <20°

Rotation >10° <30°

Translation <50 % or change of mechanical axis 1–3 cm

Angulation ≥20°

Rotation ≥30°

Translation ≥50 % or change of mechanical axis >3 cm

Combination of deformities at one level or multilevel deformity
Other levels of treatment in same boneNone1 Additional level, mild complexity1 Additional level, moderate complexity1 Additional level, severe complexity or ≥addition
Associated tibial lengthening (cm)None1–33.1–6>6
Instability of jointNoneGrade I—mild instability: anteroposterior instability of knee with end point. Shenton’s line not brokenGrade II—moderate instability: anteroposterior instability of knee without end point. Shenton’s line broken but reducibleGrade III—fixed subluxation or dislocation
Fixed flexion deformity of knee (°)01–56–20>20
Flexion of knee (°)>120100–12065–99<65
Osteoarthrosis of jointNoneMarginal osteophytes, subchondral sclerosisNarrowing of joint spaceLoss of joint space (bone on bone)
Quality of boneNormalOllier’s disease, mild osteoporosis, non-unionRadiation, neurofibromatosis, osteogenesis imperfectaOsteonecrosis, infection
Quality of soft tissueNormalSpastic, obese, muscularFibrotic, post-radiation, small open woundTissue necrosis, infection, large open wound
Medical problems and medicationsNoneSmoking, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis or other systemic arthritisDiabetes, haemophilia, sickle cell anaemia, mild immunosuppression, bone-inhibition medicationModerate immunosuppression, anti-metabolic chemotherapy
Paley’s level of difficulty score [4] Angulation >5° <20° Rotation >10° <30° Translation <50 % or change of mechanical axis 1–3 cm Angulation ≥20° Rotation ≥30° Translation ≥50 % or change of mechanical axis >3 cm This classifies the cases into 3 categories: Mild; 0–6 points Moderate; 7–11 points Severe; >12 points These scores were used to determine the level of difficulty of these cases as well as the possible relationship between a high score and complications. The outcome measure was based on a combination of function, alignment and need for further intervention: this is considered excellent if the patients were fully weight-bearing and pain-free on a mechanically aligned limb without need for further surgery; good if the patient required more surgery to achieve union; and poor if irreversible complications occurred. No statistical analysis was performed as the numbers reported are small. Descriptive statistics are used.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 32 years (range 22–39). There were 11 males and 7 female patients. The aetiology was divided into 18 post-traumatic causes and 6 development-related abnormalities. Distraction osteogenesis was used for limb lengthening in 7 cases, for the reconstruction of bone defects or non-unions in 10 cases and for deformity corrections in 7 cases. Patient data are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

Patient data

GroupCasePresenting problemManagement (ex-fix days)Conversion (delay days)ConversionOutcomePaley score
Plating delayed1Atrophic non-union humerusTSF reconstruction (159)TSF delay to ORIF (12)Refracture, second debridementPin track sepsis8
3Valgus deformity correction femurTSF deformity correction (70)TSF delay to ORIF (35)Pin tracks infected debridedGood6
4Varus deformity correction femurTSF deformity correction (70)TSF delay to ORIF (35)Good6
9Septic non-unionIlizarov, cement spacer, bone graft (238)Ilizarov to ORIF (28)Pin tracks curettedGood6
Plating acute5Lengthening femur defect 7 cmIlizarov—LRS lengthening (242)LRS acute ORIFRepeat debridement, bone graft and ORIFNon-union9
6Segmental fracture tibia mal/non-unionIlizarov reconstruction (221)Ilizarov to ORIFPin tracks excisedGood7
7Bow leg deformity LTSF and deformity correction (29)TSF to ORIFPin tracks excisedGood5
8Bow leg deformity RTSF and deformity correction (29)TSF to ORIFGood5
11Atrophic non-union femurLRS, corticotomy, bone transport (266)LRS to ORIFPin tracks excisedGood6
12Non-union distal tibiaIlizarov deformity correction (218)Ilizarov to ORIFPin tracks curettedGood7
15Lengthening femur defect 5 cmLRS, corticotomy (97)LRS to ORIFDistraction deviceGood6
16Lengthening femur defect 5 cmLRS, corticotomy (91)LRS to ORIFPin tracks excisedGood6
18Bow leg deformity LTSF and osteotomy deformity correction (33)TSF to ORIFPin tracks curettedGood4
19Bow leg deformity RTSF and osteotomy deformity correction (33)TSF to ORIFPin tracks curettedGood4
23Segmental fracture tibia mal/non-unionTSF reconstructionTSF to ORIFPin tracks curettedGood6
24Oligotrophic non-union tibiaTSF reconstructionTSF to ORIFPin tracks curettedGood6
Nail delayed14Comminuted tibia fracture, distal 1/3Ilizarov, corticotomy, lengthening (281)Ilizarov to nail (4)Pin tracks curettedGood6
Nail acute2GA III B tib fib, non-union, shortened 5 cmTSF reconstruction and plastics (370)TSF acute nailDelayed amputation (142)Amputation9
10Septic non-union femurLRS, corticotomy, bone transport (266)LRS to nailBone transport 12 cmGood6
13Septic non-union distal tibiaTrulok, corticotomy, bone transport (126)Trulok to nailPin tracks excisedGood5
17Segmental tibial fractureTSF reconstruction and plastics (90)TSF acute nailPin tracks curettedGood5
20GA III B tibial fibulaTSF reconstruction and plastics (218)TSF acute nailDelayed amputation (93)Amputation7
21Open fracture radiusTSF reconstruction (61)TSF acute nailPin tracks curettedGood5
22Open fracture ulnaTSF reconstruction (61)TSF acute nailPin tracks curettedGood5
Patient data The reasons for conversion to internal fixation included dissatisfaction with the period in external fixation for 11 cases, persistent pin track infections in 8 cases, docking site-related problems in 4 cases and a refracture in one patient. The mean external fixator time was 185 days (61–370). Using the criteria described earlier, 20 limbs (83.3 %) had an excellent result, 2 patients had a good result (requiring further surgery to achieve union) and two with poor results (8.4 %). Both patients with poor results had requested amputations for persistent painful septic non-unions. These cases had prolonged frame time (280–370 days) and had high scores using Paley’s level of difficulty (7, 9) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

A 31-year-old female presented with a subtrochanteric non-union and a 12-cm leg length discrepancy after 14 previous surgeries. This reconstruction (Paley’s level of difficulty 9) required a second procedure (internal fixation and bone graft) to promote union after the initial conversion procedure (original frame time 242 days)

A 31-year-old female presented with a subtrochanteric non-union and a 12-cm leg length discrepancy after 14 previous surgeries. This reconstruction (Paley’s level of difficulty 9) required a second procedure (internal fixation and bone graft) to promote union after the initial conversion procedure (original frame time 242 days) Acute conversion was done in 19 limbs and delayed conversion in 5 of the 24 limbs. Although 17 limbs (89.4 %) in the acute conversion group had a good outcome (16 limbs of which with an excellent result), two limbs (10.6 %) had a poor result and required amputation. No deep infections were encountered in the acute conversion to plate fixation group. However, both amputations were after acute conversion to intramedullary nails after initial treatment for tibial septic non-unions. All cases in the delayed conversion group had a good outcome with the 4 limbs (80 %) having an excellent result. The number of cases in this group is small; the single delayed conversion to an intramedullary nail had no complications.

Discussion

This retrospective case series provides some support for the strategy of conversion from external to internal fixation. The number of complications was low, considering the severity of these cases, with an average Paley’s level of difficulty score of 6 (moderate). Plate fixation had a lower complication rate in the acute conversion group in comparison with intramedullary nails. This concurs with the findings of Rozbruch et al. [16, 17]. These authors also encountered a higher infection rate with the use of intramedullary nailing following external fixation lengthening (LATN) when compared to plating following lengthening (LAP). Our two amputations in this case series suggest that acute conversion to an intramedullary nail should be avoided when converting an external fixator to internal fixation if the original problem was a septic non-union. As to whether this risk is attenuated when there is a delay between fixator removal and nail introduction requires further study with a larger sample (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

A 41-year-old female presented with an atrophic non-union of the humerus (Paley’s level of difficulty 8) which was managed with both Ilizarov and TSF frames (frame time 159 days) before being plated. The procedure was performed after a delay to allow secondary debridement for persistent pin track sepsis

A 41-year-old female presented with an atrophic non-union of the humerus (Paley’s level of difficulty 8) which was managed with both Ilizarov and TSF frames (frame time 159 days) before being plated. The procedure was performed after a delay to allow secondary debridement for persistent pin track sepsis Infection remains a problem during prolonged external fixation and is a risk when the method of fixation is changed to internal fixation. The average follow-up in this study was 20 months with a shorter minimum follow-up period; thus, the infection rates quoted in this case series have to be interpreted with some caution as occult sepsis may not be excluded conclusively. Another shortcoming in this study is that initial pin track infections prior to conversion were treated empirically and culture and sensitivity results unavailable. As both amputations were due to persistent infection, knowledge of pre- and post-conversion bacteriology may have provided further information in terms of risk factors and reasons for conversion failure. The heterogeneity of patients in a reconstructive setting and the small sample in this case series makes it difficult to weigh the impact of medical comorbidities on outcome. We found the Paley level of difficulty score in femoral lengthening helpful as a system to quantify the additive nature of these negative effects. However, the system of scoring has to be validated further or be evolved to a more comprehensive limb reconstruction scoring system.

Conclusion

Complex reconstruction surgery on limbs based on the technique of distraction osteogenesis will entail prolonged periods of external fixation. There will be, due to the nature of complexity of cases, a need for conversion to internal fixation owing to reasons of patient non-compliance, failure to progress in treatment or persistent complications with continued use of the external fixator device. This series supports the practice of conversion and identifies that plate devices appear to produce fewer deep sepsis complications, particularly when the original presenting diagnosis is a septic non-union.
  14 in total

1.  Does lengthening and then plating (LAP) shorten duration of external fixation?

Authors:  Ryhor Harbacheuski; Austin T Fragomen; S Robert Rozbruch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Limb lengthening and then insertion of an intramedullary nail: a case-matched comparison.

Authors:  S Robert Rozbruch; Dawn Kleinman; Austin T Fragomen; Svetlana Ilizarov
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-18       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique.

Authors:  D Paley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Complications and outcome of tibial lengthening using the Ilizarov method with or without a supplementary intramedullary nail: a case-matched comparative study.

Authors:  X-T Sun; T R Easwar; S Manesh; J-H Ryu; S-H Song; S-J Kim; H-R Song
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-06

5.  Complications encountered during lengthening over an intramedullary nail.

Authors:  Mehmet Kocaoglu; Levent Eralp; Onder Kilicoglu; Halil Burc; Mehmet Cakmak
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Plating after lengthening (PAL): technical notes and preliminary clinical experiences.

Authors:  Mustafa Uysal; Sercan Akpinar; Necip Cesur; Murat Ali Hersekli; Reha N Tandoğan
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2007-09-08       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Variables affecting time to bone healing during limb lengthening.

Authors:  J Fischgrund; D Paley; C Suter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Limb lengthening with submuscular plate stabilization: a case series and description of the technique.

Authors:  Christopher A Iobst; Mark T Dahl
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.324

9.  Infection after intramedullary nailing of severe open tibial fractures initially treated with external fixation.

Authors:  D J Maurer; R L Merkow; R B Gustilo
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Limb lengthening with a submuscular locking plate.

Authors:  C-W Oh; H-R Song; J-W Kim; J-W Choi; W-K Min; B-C Park
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-10
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Lower extremity growth and deformity.

Authors:  Amanda T Whitaker; Carley Vuillermin
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-12

2.  Patient-reported Outcome and Quality of Life after Treatment with External Fixation: A Questionnaire-based Survey.

Authors:  Shuhei Ugaji; Hidenori Matsubara; Satoshi Kato; Yasuhisa Yoshida; Tomo Hamada; Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr       Date:  2021 Jan-Apr
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.