Alimujiang Abulaiti1, Yilizati Yilihamu1, Tayierjiang Yasheng2, Yamuhanmode Alike1, Aihemaitijiang Yusufu3. 1. Department of Microrepair and Reconstruction, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, 830000, PR China. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, 830000, PR China. 3. Department of Microrepair and Reconstruction, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, 830000, PR China. Electronic address: AYusufu@foxmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological impact of external fixation for a tibial bone defect due to osteomyelitis, and to compare the Orthofix limb reconstruction system (LRS) with the Ilizarov external fixator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SCL-90-R questionnaire was administered at four different time points (before surgery, while patients wore the external fixation device, when the device was removed, and two to three months after). The scores at the four time points were compared, as were the two different methods of external fixation (Orthofix LRS vs. Ilizarov). RESULTS: The patients experienced a significant adverse impact on their mental health, with the worst outcomes at Time 2 (while wearing the external fixator), but with some negative effects still present even several months after removal of the fixation device. Although the Orthofix LRS and Ilizarov groups showed similar mental health scores at Time 1 (preoperatively) and Time 3 (upon removal of the fixation device), the Orthofix LRS was associated with better scores, specifically in the Hostility (Time 2), Phobic Anxiety (Time 2), Psychoticism (Times 2 and 4), and Other (Time 2) sub-scores, as well as the total score (Times 2 and 4). CONCLUSIONS: Although both Ilizarov and Orthofix LRS fixation resolved the bone defects, external fixation had a negative impact on the patients' mental health, which persisted even after removal of the devices. Although both methods led to negative effects on the patients' mental, the impact of the Orthofix LRS was less severe.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological impact of external fixation for a tibial bone defect due to osteomyelitis, and to compare the Orthofix limb reconstruction system (LRS) with the Ilizarov external fixator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SCL-90-R questionnaire was administered at four different time points (before surgery, while patients wore the external fixation device, when the device was removed, and two to three months after). The scores at the four time points were compared, as were the two different methods of external fixation (Orthofix LRS vs. Ilizarov). RESULTS: The patients experienced a significant adverse impact on their mental health, with the worst outcomes at Time 2 (while wearing the external fixator), but with some negative effects still present even several months after removal of the fixation device. Although the Orthofix LRS and Ilizarov groups showed similar mental health scores at Time 1 (preoperatively) and Time 3 (upon removal of the fixation device), the Orthofix LRS was associated with better scores, specifically in the Hostility (Time 2), Phobic Anxiety (Time 2), Psychoticism (Times 2 and 4), and Other (Time 2) sub-scores, as well as the total score (Times 2 and 4). CONCLUSIONS: Although both Ilizarov and Orthofix LRS fixation resolved the bone defects, external fixation had a negative impact on the patients' mental health, which persisted even after removal of the devices. Although both methods led to negative effects on the patients' mental, the impact of the Orthofix LRS was less severe.