| Literature DB >> 32596336 |
Chen-An Hsu1,2, Shih-Heng Chen3, Soa-Yu Chan4, Yi-Hsun Yu5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the predicting factors for union and infection after applying the induced membrane technique (IMT) for segmental tibial defects.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32596336 PMCID: PMC7273462 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5893642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram. IPD: individual patient data.
Risk of bias.
| +Low risk of bias | Apard (2010) | Donegan (2011) | El Afly (2015) | Gupta (2016) | Olesen (2015) | Stafford (2010) | Giannoudis (2016) | Zoller (2017) | Ma (2017) | Cho (2017) | Sasaki (2018) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Were there clear inclusion criteria for the case series? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Were valid methods used to identify the condition for all participants included in the case series? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Did the case series include participants consecutively? | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - |
| Did the case series involve complete inclusion of participants? | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - |
| Was the reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study clear? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Was the reporting of the clinical information of the participants clear? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Were the outcomes or follow-up results of cases clearly reported? | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Was the reporting of demographic information of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) clear? | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Was the statistical analysis appropriate? | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Patient demographics and preoperative characteristics.
| Study | Design |
| Age2 | Sex3 | Etiology | Defect length (cm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inf. | N-Inf. | ||||||
| Apard et al. [ | Retrospective | 12/12 | 40.7 (18-74) | 10/12 | 7 | 5 | 8.67 (5-15) |
| Donegan et al. [ | Retrospective | 6/11 | 51 (31-84) | 5/6 | 3 | 3 | 6.25 (4-8) |
| El Afly et al. [ | Prospective | 13/17 | 43.6 (26-58) | 11/13 | 13 | 0 | 7.92 (5-11) |
| Gupta et al. [ | Prospective | 9/9 | 35.4 (18-55) | 7/9 | 8 | 1 | 5.26 (3.3-8.5) |
| Olesen et al. [ | Retrospective | 6/8 | 50.5 (41-70) | 5/6 | 2 | 4 | 5.88 (2.9-9.3) |
| Stafford et al. [ | Retrospective | 19/25 | 38.7 (23-58) | 16/19 | 5 | 14 | 4.76 (1-20) |
| Giannoudis et al. [ | Prospective | 11/43 | 39.7 (18-63) | 7/11 | 7 | 4 | 4.49 (3.5-7.5) |
| Zoller et al. [ | Retrospective | 8/9 | 35.4 (22-53) | 6/8 | 3 | 5 | 6 (3-10) |
| Ma et al. [ | Retrospective | 15/15 | 53.5 (35-72) | 12/15 | 2 | 13 | 0.97 (0-3.5) |
| Cho et al. [ | Retrospective | 11/21 | 49.7 (31-74) | 10/11 | 11 | 0 | 7.52 (3.4-15.9) |
| Sasaki et al. [ | Retrospective | 5/7 | 45.2 (24-77) | 5/5 | 5 | 0 | 4.9 (2.5-6) |
| Total | 115/177 | 94/115 | 66 | 49 | |||
Inf.: infected non-union; N-inf.: noninfected nonunion. 1Values were given as the number of patients with a tibial defect/total number of patients in each study. 2Values were given according to the year as the mean age and age range of patients with only a tibial defect. 3Values were given as the number of male patients/total number of patients included in this review.
Figure 2Multivariate analysis of infection complications. The postprocedural infection rate after the IMT was higher for patients with infected nonunion and a defect length ≥ 7 cm.
Figure 3Multivariate analysis of additional bone graft surgery. Use of an antibiotic-impregnated spacer during stage one decreased the risk of regrafting; however, using nail fixation during stage one did not show statistical significance regarding additional bone graft surgery.
Figure 4Multivariate analysis of the union status. Patients without postprocedural complications due to infection after the IMT demonstrated better healing outcomes.
Figure 5Forest plot of the union status of patients with or without postprocedural complications due to infection after the IMT.