| Literature DB >> 36034365 |
Alimujiang Abulaiti1, Yanshi Liu1, Feiyu Cai1, Kai Liu1, Abulaiti Abula1, Xiayimaierdan Maimaiti1, Peng Ren1, Aihemaitijiang Yusufu1.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and determine the differences, if any, between the trifocal bone transport (TFT) technique and the bifocal bone transport (BFT) technique in the reconstruction of long segmental tibial bone defects caused by infection using a monolateral rail external fixator.Entities:
Keywords: bifocal bone transport; bone defect; distraction osteogenesis; reconstruction; trifocal bone transport
Year: 2022 PMID: 36034365 PMCID: PMC9406520 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.858240
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the two bone transport techniques for the management of the lower third bony segmental defects in the tibia (from left to right). (A) Bifocal bone transport technique. (B) Trifocal bone transport technique.
Figure 2A 42-year-old man who suffered chronic osteomyelitis in his right tibia after internal fixation treatment followed by a road traffic accident and successfully treated by the bifocal bone transport (BFT) technique from proximal to distal. (A) Preoperative anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs. (B) Preoperative general appearance, showing soft tissue defects with drainage and sinus. (C) AP and lateral radiographs immediately after radical debridement and installation of the monolateral external fixator; there were 6-cm bone defects. A BFT technique from proximal to distal was performed to reconstruct the injured limb.
Figure 3Images of the same patient shown in Figure 2. (A) Radiographs reveal the complete consolidation and docking site union. (B) General appearance before frame removal, showing the satisfactory range of motion of knee and ankle joint results. (C) Radiographs 6 months later after removing the external fixator.
Figure 4A 53-year-old man suffered chronic osteomyelitis in his right tibia after internal fixation treatment due to a crushing injury caused by a heavy object and was successfully managed by the trifocal bone transport technique (tandem transport, from proximal to distal). (A) Preoperative radiographs indicated that the infectious lesion was located at the distal one-third of the tibial shaft. (B) Removal of devitalized bone and soft tissue by radical debridement; the soft tissue defect was treated by using a local tissue flap. (C) There were 9-cm bone defects, and a trifocal tandem bone transport from proximal to distal was conducted for the limb reconstruction.
Figure 5Images of the same patient shown in Figure 4. (A) Complete consolidation and docking site union after docking in 3 months. (B) Satisfactory functional recovery before monolateral external fixator removal. (C) Radiographs 9 months later after removing the frame.
Comparison of the results of the two groups.
| Parameter | BFT group | TFT group | Statistical value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean OD (min) | 122.5 ± 11.2 | 161.9 ± 8.9 | −13.544 | |
| Mean DT (days) | 96.8 ± 22.6 | 65.9 ± 10.8 | 5.833 | |
| Mean EFT (days) | 474.5 ± 103.2 | 328.0 ± 57.2 | 5.919 | |
| Mean EFI (days/cm) | 60.8 ± 1.9 | 34.8 ± 2.1 | 46.492 |
BFT, bifocal bone transport; TFT, trifocal bone transport; OD, operation duration; DT, docking time; EFT, external fixation time; EFI, external fixation index.
Results of ASAMI scores.
| Parameter | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | Failure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bone results | ||||||
| BFT group | 13 | 15 | 3 | 1 | – | 0.903 |
| TFT group | 11 | 8 | 2 | 0 | – | |
| Functional results | ||||||
| BFT group | 10 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0.844 |
| TFT group | 8 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
BFT, bifocal bone transport; TFT, trifocal bone transport.
ASAMI criteria:
Bone results
Excellent: Union, no infection, deformity <7°, limb length discrepancy (LLD) <2.5 cm.
Good: Union plus any two of the following: absence of infection, deformity <7°, LLD <2.5 cm.
Fair: Union plus any one of the following: absence of infection, deformity <7°, LLD <2.5 cm.
Poor: Non-union/refracture/union plus infection plus deformity >7° plus LLD >2.5 cm.
Functional results
Excellent: Active, no limp, minimum stiffness (loss of <15° knee extension/<15° ankle dorsiflexion) no reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), insignificant pain.
Good: Active, with one or two of the following: limb, stiffness, RSD, and significant pain.
Fair: Active, with three or all of the following: limb, stiffness, RSD, and significant pain.
Poor: Inactive (unemployment or the inability to return to daily activities because of injury).
Failure: Amputation.
Difficulties during treatment in the two groups.
| Difficulty | BFT group ( | TFT group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem | 43 | 17 | |
| Obstacle | 20 | 8 | |
| Complication | 31 | 11 | |
| Total difficulties | 94 | 36 | |
| Mean difficulties/patient | 2.9 | 1.7 | 0.001 |
BFT, bifocal bone transport; TFT, trifocal bone transport.
Summary of complications in the two groups.
| Complications | BFT group ( | TFT group ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | ||
| Pin tract infection | 5 | 15.6 | 2 | 9.5 | |
| Axial deviation | 7 | 21.9 | 3 | 14.3 | |
| Soft tissue incarceration | 3 | 9.4 | 1 | 4.8 | |
| Joint stiffness | 11 | 34.4 | 5 | 23.8 | |
| Delayed union | 4 | 12.5 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Non-union | 1 | 3.1 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Refracture | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Total complications | 31 | 11 | |||
| Mean complications/ patient | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.032 | ||
BFT, bifocal bone transport; TFT, trifocal bone transport.
Demographics of the two groups.
| Parameter | BFT group | TFT group | Statistical value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | 32 | 21 | – | – |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 23 | 16 | 0.121 | 0.727 |
| Female | 9 | 5 | ||
| Age (year) | 38.2 ± 12.3 | 39.9 ± 12.9 | −0.479 | 0.634 |
| Etiology of bone defect | ||||
| Infected non-union | 10 | 7 | 0.025 | 0.874 |
| Chronic osteomyelitis | 22 | 14 | ||
| Injured tibia | ||||
| Left | 13 | 9 | 0.026 | 0.872 |
| Right | 19 | 12 | ||
| Location of bone defect | ||||
| Proximal | 5 | 3 | 0.164 | 0.921 |
| Middle | 18 | 11 | ||
| Distal | 9 | 7 | ||
| Mean previous operation time | 2.5 ± 0.9 | 2.6 ± 1.1 | −0.307 | 0.760 |
| Mean defect size (cm) | 7.8 ± 1.8 | 9.4 ± 1.5 | −3.340 | 0.002 |
BFT, bifocal bone transport; TFT, trifocal bone transport.