| Literature DB >> 34911504 |
Yimurang Hamiti1, Maimaiaili Yushan1, Cheng Lu1, Aihemaitijiang Yusufu2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical outcomes of the application of induced membrane followed by trifocal bone transport technique in the treatment of massive tibial defect caused by osteomyelitis.Entities:
Keywords: External fixator; Ilizarov technique; Induced membrane; Osteomyelitis; Trifocal bone transport
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34911504 PMCID: PMC8672610 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01421-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Demographic data of 18 patients
| Case | Age/gender | Defect size (cm) | Defect site | Etiology of defect | Previous operation time | Duration of spacer (weeks) | Follow-up period (months) | EFI (days/cm) | Duration of regenerate consolidation (days) | Duration of docking union (days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 26/M | 7.1 | Distal | PO | 2 | 6 | 25 | 41.6 | 107 | 261 |
| 2 | 55/M | 6.8 | Middle | PTO | 5 | 4 | 36 | 33.2 | 112 | 143 |
| 3 | 33/M | 6.1 | Proximal | PO | 2 | 4 | 25 | 34.5 | 145 | 167 |
| 4 | 41/F | 6.5 | Proximal | PTO | 4 | 5 | 38 | 33.9 | 117 | 213 |
| 5 | 53/M | 7.5 | Distal | PTO | 5 | 6 | 24 | 32.7 | 153 | 172 |
| 6 | 40/M | 6.8 | Middle | PTO | 2 | 7 | 26 | 37.1 | 124 | 147 |
| 7 | 37/M | 6.1 | Middle | PTO | 4 | 4 | 30 | 43.1 | 116 | 178 |
| 8 | 22/F | 7.2 | Proximal | PO | 2 | 5 | 41 | 33.6 | 106 | 223 |
| 9 | 62/M | 6.2 | Middle | PTO | 5 | 4 | 24 | 40.7 | 133 | 151 |
| 10 | 58/M | 7.3 | Middle | PTO | 5 | 5 | 25 | 43.5 | 121 | 182 |
| 11 | 29/F | 6.3 | Distal | PO | 1 | 4 | 24 | 36.1 | 113 | 194 |
| 12 | 35/M | 6.0 | Middle | PO | 3 | 4 | 24 | 39.1 | 127 | 156 |
| 13 | 33/F | 7.9 | Proximal | PTO | 3 | 6 | 27 | 37.6 | 131 | 238 |
| 14 | 45/M | 8.2 | Proximal | PTO | 4 | 5 | 26 | 45.6 | 114 | 178 |
| 15 | 37/F | 6.3 | Middle | PTO | 2 | 5 | 25 | 34.6 | 105 | 167 |
| 16 | 43/M | 8.0 | Distal | PTO | 3 | 4 | 39 | 35.3 | 148 | 189 |
| 17 | 39/M | 6.1 | Middle | PTO | 5 | 4 | 26 | 30.8 | 137 | 203 |
| 18 | 40/F | 6.7 | Proximal | PTO | 3 | 5 | 29 | 34.7 | 136 | 193 |
EFI external fixation index, M male, F female, PO primary osteomyelitis, PTO posttraumatic osteomyelitis
Evaluation of the bone and functional results according ASAMI classification
| Outcomes | Numbers/percentage | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
| Bone results | 6 (33.3%) | 8 (44.4%) | 3 (16.7%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| Functional results | 4 (22.2%) | 10 (55.6%) | 2 (11.1%) | 2 (11.1%) |
ASAMI the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov
Fig. 1A An 43-year-old male patient with posttraumatic osteomyelitis of the right tibia. B–E After three previous debridement operations, there was a defect of 8.0 cm and filled with PMMA spacer. The soft tissue defect was covered by latissimus dorsi flap. F Two months after bifocal bone transport using monolateral external fixator. G, H External fixator was removed with excellent bone result assessed by ASAMI system 3 years after removal of external fixator. I–K Radiograph and general appearance at last visit with excellent functional result
Fig. 2A An 26-year-old male patient with primary osteomyelitis of the right tibia. B An excision of infected bone with 7.1 cm defect and filled with cement spacer. C–F Trifocal bone transport was completed with good regenerate consolidation and docking union was achieved at 8 months after index surgery. G External fixator was removed with excellent bone result assessed by ASAMI system. H, I General appearance at last visit with excellent functional result
Complications according Paley criteria
| Parameter | Problems | Obstacles | Complications | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muscle contraction | 6 | 2 | 3 | 11 |
| Axial deviation | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Delayed consolidation | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6 |
| Pin problems | 12 | 3 | 0 | 15 |
| Repeat fracture | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joint stiffness | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 |
| Other | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| Total | 23 | 16 | 13 |
Summary of study and patient characteristics
| Study | Study type | Patients (M/F) | Mean ages (years) | Mean defect sizes (cm, range) | Treatment type (trifocal/bifocal) | Bone union rate | Bony results (excellent/good/fair/poor) | Functional results (excellent/good/fair/poor) | EFI (days/cm) | Follow-up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abuomira et al. [ | IBT | 55 (44/11) | 41.5 | 7.1 (3–17) | 29/26 | 89% | 28/18/5/4 | 25/21/5/4 | nr | 50 |
| Bernstein et al. [ | IBT | 30 (24/6) | 43 | 5.7 (1.6–12) | 0/30 | 77% | 27/2/0/1 | 27/1/0/0 | nr | 33 |
| Meleppuram et al. [ | IBT | 42 (32/10) | 38 | nr (2.5–5.5) | nr/36 | 100% | 25/6/11/0 | 23/13/2/4 | nr | 14 |
| Kinik et al. [ | IBT | 30 (28/2) | 39.5 | 8.1 (6–15) | 0/30 | 96.66% | 22/6/0/0 | 19/7/2/0 | 44.7 | 32.5 |
| Fahad et al. [ | IBT | 51 (41/10) | 45.7 | 3.5 (2–5) | 0/51 | 96% | 22/19/7/3 | 24/21/4/2 | 60 | 36.8 |
| Rohilla et al. [ | IBT | 70 (62/8) | 31.3 | 5.8 (3–9) vs 5.8 (3–10) | 0/70 | 77% vs 80% | 35/27/3/5 | 38/27/1/3 | 63.6 vs 63.3 | 33.8 vs 32.6 |
| Catagni et al. [ | IBT | 86 (77/9) | 42 vs 43 | 13.5 (10.5–16.5) vs 12.5 (9.6–14.4) | 41/45 | 100% | 68/11/3/4 | 47/21/14/4 | 41/44 | nr |
| Zhang et al. [ | IBT | 16 (9/7) | 39.1 | 10.9 (6–20) | 16/0 | 100% | 10/0/6/0 | 12/4/0/0 | 33 | 29.5 |
| Li et al. [ | IBT | 26 (20/6) | 40.4 | 10.7 (7.5–15) vs 7.2 (5.8–9) | 13/13 | 100% | 20/0/6/0 | 22/4/0/0 | 36.6 vs 75.6 | 28.5 |
| Paley et al. [ | IBT | 19 (14/5) | 38 | 10.7 (2–20) | 6/13 | 100% | 15/3/1/0 (paley) | 12/6/1/0 (paley) | 51 | 78 |
| Tone et al. [ | IM | 20 (15/5) | 39.9 | 6.69 | – | 100% | 5/10/4/1 | 8/9/3/0 | 54.9 | 23.2 |
| Morris et al. [ | IM | 12 (9/3) | 35 | 5.8 (2–15) | – | 42% | nr | nr | nr | 22.5 |
| El-Alfy et al. [ | IM | 15 (12/3) | 32 | 8 (5–14) | – | 87% | nr | nr | nr | 23 |
| Present study | IM + IBT | 18 (12/6) | 40.4 | 6.8 (6–8.2) | 18/0 | 100% | 6/8/3/1 | 4/10/2/2 | 37.1 | 28.5 |
EFI external fixation index, M male, F female, IBT Ilizarov bone transport, IM induced membrane, nr not reported