| Literature DB >> 34863237 |
Jiafei Du1, Zifei Yin2, Pengfei Cheng1, Pei Han3, Hao Shen4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and complications of a novel piston technique versus the Ilizarov technique for the repair of bone defects after lower limb infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 41 patients who had been treated at our department for lower extremity bone defects following osteomyelitis. There were 38 men and three women with a mean age of 43.41 (range, 12-69 years). The infected bone defects involved 36 tibias and five femurs. The piston technique (PT, group A) was used in 12 patients and the Ilizarov technique (IT, group B) in 29 patients. The mean follow-up period was 28.50 months (PT) and 29.90 months (IT). The modified Application of Methods of Illizarov (ASAMI) criteria was used to evaluate bone healing and functional recovery.Entities:
Keywords: Bone defect; Ilizarov technique; Induced membrane; Lower limb infection; Masquelet; Piston technique
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34863237 PMCID: PMC8642891 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02844-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1.54-year-old man with left tibia osteomyelitis, having a bone defect length of 9.8 cm, was performed with Piston technique. a, b During debridement, the infected or necrotic bone was removed radically. c Bone cement spacer. d External fixation. e Bone union was achieved at 19 months after second-stage operation. f Patient had removed the external fixator
Fig. 2The bone transport process of a 50-year-old woman who had an infected left tibia bone defect with traditional Ilizarov technique. a Radiograph of a 50-year-old woman who had an infected left tibia bone defect with the start of transverse osteotomy. b Three weeks after operation. c Two months after operation. d–f Having the regenerated bone begun to be mineralized at the docking site at 7, 9 months and 1 year after operation. g Good consolidation and mineralization of the regenerated bone at 17 months after operation. h Completing bone union and removing the external fixation at 24 months after operation
The criteria for the assessment of bone and function 13
| Bone results | Criteria | Functional results | Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Union, no infection, deformity < 7°, limb-length discrepancy (LLD) < 2.5 cm | Excellent | Active, no limp, minimum stiffness (loss of < 15° knee extension/< 15° ankle dorsiflexion), no reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), insignificant pain |
| Good | Union plus any two of the following: absence of infection, deformity < 7°, LLD < 2.5 cm | Good | Active, with one or two of the following: limp, stiffness, RSD, significant pain |
| Fair | Union plus any one of the following: absence of infection, deformity < 7°, LLD < 2.5 cm | Fair | Active, with three or all of the following: limp, stiffness, RSD, significant pain |
| Poor | Nonunion/refracture/union plus infection plus deformity > 7° plus LLD > 2.5 cm | Poor | Inactive (unemployment or inability to return to daily activities because of injury) |
Basic patient data of PT and IT groups
| Items | PT group | IT group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 12 | 29 | – |
| Sex ratio (males/females) | 11/1 | 27/2 | 0.657 |
| Mean age | 44.00 ± 11.73 | 43.17 ± 15.75 | 0.871 |
| Mean times of previous operations | 2.67 ± 1.15 | 2.52 ± 1.06 | 0.690 |
| Site of injury (femur/tibia) | 2/10 | 3/26 | 0.620 |
| Right/left | 4/8 | 17/12 | 0.181 |
| Type of external fixator (circular/monolateral) | 8/4 | 22/7 | 0.701 |
Comparisons of follow-up data between PT and IT groups
| Items | PT group | IT group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of cementation (days) | 64 | – | – |
| Bone defect length (cm) | 9.96 ± 3.10 | 7.5 ± 3.04 | 0.024 |
| External fixator time (days) | 425.92 ± 166.35 | 430.90 ± 165.85 | 0.931 |
| External fixator index (EFI = days/cm) | 42.32 ± 8.31 | 58.85 ± 13.53 | < 0.001 |
| Cases of bone regraft | 0 | 3 | – |
| Follow-up (months) | 28.50 ± 8.23 | 29.90 ± 8.21 | 0.623 |
Evaluation of the bone and functional results between PT and IT groups
| Outcomes | Treatment | Numbers (femur/tibia/percentage) | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||||
| Bone results | PT group | 9 (1/8) | 3 (1/2) | 0 (0/0) | 0 (0/0) | 2/10 | |
| 75.0% | 25.0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| IT group | 19 (1/18) | 10 (2/8) | 0 (0/0) | 0 (0/0) | 3/26 | ||
| 65.5% | 34.5% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| Functional results | PT group | 7 (0/7) | 4 (1/3) | 0 (0/0) | 1 (1/0) | 2/10 | |
| 58.3% | 33.3% | 0% | 8.3% | ||||
| IT group | 6 (0/6) | 12 (1/11) | 10 (2/8) | 1 (0/1) | 3/26 | ||
| 20.7% | 41.4% | 34.5% | 3.4% | ||||