| Literature DB >> 31673175 |
Sandeep Vijaykumar Vaidya1, Alaric Aroojis1, Rujuta Mehta1, Mandar Vikas Agashe1, Arjun Dhawale1, Ankita Vijay Bansal1, Kailash Sarathy1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of Congenital Psuedarthrosis of Tibia (CPT) often poses significant challenges due to difficulty in achieving union and subsequent complications like refractures, implant failures, etc. Our new comprehensive protocol is aimed at achieving crossunion between the tibia and fibula. AIMS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Congenital psuedarthrosis of tibia; ilizarov ring fixator; intramedullary rodding; neurofibromatosis; tibia fibula cross union
Year: 2019 PMID: 31673175 PMCID: PMC6804390 DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_155_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Orthop ISSN: 0019-5413 Impact factor: 1.251
Comparison of outcome parameters with previously published studies using different methods
| Treatment method | Number of patients | Primary union (%) | Final union (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joseph and Mathew | Rodding | 26 | 21 (80) | 24 (92) |
| Johnston | Rodding | 21 | 18 (86) | 19 (90) |
| Dobbs | Rodding | 23 | 5 (22) | 20 (86) |
| Grill | Ilizarov | 28 | 28 (100) | 26 (93) |
| Borzunov | Ilizarov | 108 | 61 (56) | 82 (76) |
| Paley | Ilizarov | 16 | 15 (94) | 16 (100) |
| Agashe | Ilizarov + rodding | 15 | 6 (40) | 14 (93) |
| Yan | Ilizarov + rodding | 51 | 46 (91) | 47 (92) |
| Kalra and Agarwal | Vascularised fibula graft | 26 | 20 (79) | 24 (93) |
| Choi | Four-in-one | 8 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) |
| Paley | X-union protocol | 17 | 17 (100) | 17 (100) |
| Our series | New comprehensive protocol | 10 | 10 (100) | 10 (100) |
EPOS=European paediatric orthopaedic society
Figure 1(a) Operative steps: Anterior curvilinear incision to expose both tibia and fibula. (b) Ciricumferential excision of hamartoma at pseudarthrosis site. (c) Harvested bone graft, cancellous bone from iliac crest, onlay cortical graft from contralateral tibia, rectangular cortico-cancellous graft from lilac crest. (d) Rectangular cortico-cancellous graft placed along posterior surface of tibia and fibula after intra-medullary fixation. (e) Cancellous graft placed in tibia-fibula interosseous space. (f) Onlay graft placed along anterior surface of tibia, bony barrel thus formed tied with Vicryl suture. (g) Diagrammatic representation of circumferential placement of bone graft
Figure 2(a) 4-year-old boy, preoperative clinical picture. (b) Cystic type of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. (c) Immediate postoperative. (d) At 6 months postoperative, tibia-fibula cross-union achieved. (e) At 1.5 years postoperative, solid consolidation of union
Demographic data
| Group A (new protocol) | Group B (old technique) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at index surgery (years) | 2.35±1.67 (1.0-6.5) | 2.0±1.39 (1.0-5.5) | 0.52 (NS) |
| Classification (Crawford types) | |||
| III | 2 | 2 | 0.45 (NS) |
| IV | 8 | 9 | |
| Association with NF-1 | 4 out of 10 | 6 out of 11 | 0.505 (NS) |
| Associated fibula dysplasia (Choi’s classification) | 8 out of 10 | 10 out of 11 | 0.604 (NS) |
| Sex distribution | |||
| Male | 4 | 7 | 0.395 (NS) |
| Female | 6 | 4 | |
| Number of previous surgeries (before index surgery) | |||
| 0 | 6 | 10 | 0.07 (NS) |
| 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | |
| Total followup (months) | 21.60±6.83 (12-31) | 77.73±47.60 (29-176) | 0.002 (S) |
S=Significant, NS=Not significant, NF=Neurofibromatosis
Figure 3(a) 3-year-old girl with neurofibromatosis and congenital pseudarthrosis of tibia. (b) Atrophic type congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. (c) Immediate postoperative, surgery as per new comprehensive protocol. (d) At fixator removal, cross-union between tibia and fibula achieved. (e) At 1.5 years postoperative, tibial diaphysial valgus proximal to nail tip. (f) After tibia osteotomy, bone graft and plating
Details of surgical procedures
| Group A (new protocol) | Group B (old group) | |
|---|---|---|
| Index surgeries | New protocol=10 | IM rod+OBG=11 |
| Tibia fixation | Rush rod=6 Fassier Duval nail=4 | Rush rod=9 Fassier Duval nail=2 |
| Fibula fixation | 5/10 | 2/11 |
| Revision surgeries for union | Nil | IM rod+BG=7 BG=3 IL+BG+lengthening=3 |
| Surgeries to union | 1 | 2.25+1.04 (1-4) |
| Revision surgeries after union for secondary problems | Osteotomy + BG + plating=1 | Tibia osteotomy=1 |
IM rod=Intramedullary rod, OBG=Onlay bone graft, BG=Bone graft, IL=Ilizarov ring fixator, Ost=Osteotomy
Outcome parameters
| Group A | Group B | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rate of union | 10/10 | 8/11 | 0.21 (NS) |
| Rate of primary union | 10/10 | 2/11 | 0.00015 (S) |
| Type of union | |||
| 4 in 1 | 6/10 | 0/11 | 0.00021 (S) |
| 3 in 1 | 1/10 | 0/11 | |
| 2 in 1 | 3/10 | 8/11 | |
| Fibula union | 6/10 | 1/11 | 0.0003 (S) |
| Time taken to union/fixator removal (months) | 4.68±0.58 (3.0-5.0) | 30.88±18.75 (24.0-36.0) | 0.000404 (S) |
| Number of surgeries to union | 1 | 2.25±1.04 (1-4) | 0.000001 (S) |
| Cross-sectional area of union (cm2) | 3.82±0.58 (2.25-4.18) | 1.18±0.19 (0.88-1.44) | 0.0005 (S) |
| Knee, tibia and ankle malalignment at final followup | |||
| MPTA | 91.1±3.2 | 89.1±4.7 | 0.30 (NS) |
| PPTA | 91.00±7.07 | 85.73±4.24 | 0.07 (NS) |
| LDTA | 89.9±6.08 | 88.27±6.83 | 0.57 (NS) |
| Tibial alignment AP view | −2.85±5.5 | −1.64±16.04 | 0.82 (NS) |
| Tibial alignment lateral view | 5.3±7.9 | 8±19.10 | 0.68 (NS) |
| Limb length discrepancy (cm) | |||
| Preoperative | 2.05±0.36 | 2.14±0.45 | 0.27 (NS) |
| Postoperative | 2.85±2.43 | 2.1±3.57 |
MPTA=Medial proximal tibial angle, PPTA=Posterior proximal tibial angle, LDTA=Lateral distal tibial angle, S=Singnificant, NS=Not significant, AP=Anteroposterior