Cargando…

Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures

BACKGROUND: Management of open tibial diaphyseal fractures with bone loss is a matter of debate. The treatment options range from external fixators, nailing, ring fixators or grafting with or without plastic reconstruction. All the procedures have their own set of complications, like acute docking p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ajmera, Anand, Verma, Ankit, Agrawal, Mukul, Jain, Saurabh, Mukherjee, Arunangshu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4510797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229164
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.159638
_version_ 1782382243013984256
author Ajmera, Anand
Verma, Ankit
Agrawal, Mukul
Jain, Saurabh
Mukherjee, Arunangshu
author_facet Ajmera, Anand
Verma, Ankit
Agrawal, Mukul
Jain, Saurabh
Mukherjee, Arunangshu
author_sort Ajmera, Anand
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Management of open tibial diaphyseal fractures with bone loss is a matter of debate. The treatment options range from external fixators, nailing, ring fixators or grafting with or without plastic reconstruction. All the procedures have their own set of complications, like acute docking problems, shortening, difficulty in soft tissue management, chronic infection, increased morbidity, multiple surgeries, longer hospital stay, mal union, nonunion and higher patient dissatisfaction. We evaluated the outcome of the limb reconstruction system (LRS) in the treatment of open fractures of tibial diaphysis with bone loss as a definative mode of treatment to achieve union, as well as limb lengthening, simultaneously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty open fractures of tibial diaphysis with bone loss of at least 4 cm or more with a mean age 32.5 years were treated by using the LRS after debridement. Distraction osteogenesis at rate of 1 mm/day was done away from the fracture site to maintain the limb length. On the approximation of fracture ends, the dynamized LRS was left for further 15-20 weeks and patient was mobilized with weight bearing to achieve union. Functional assessment was done by Association for the Study and Application of the Methods of Illizarov (ASAMI) criteria. RESULTS: Mean followup period was 15 months. The mean bone loss was 5.5 cm (range 4-9 cm). The mean duration of bone transport was 13 weeks (range 8-30 weeks) with a mean time for LRS in place was 44 weeks (range 24-51 weeks). The mean implant index was 56.4 days/cm. Mean union time was 52 weeks (range 31-60 weeks) with mean union index of 74.5 days/cm. Bony results as per the ASAMI scoring were excellent in 76% (19/25), good in 12% (3/25) and fair in 4% (1/25) with union in all except 2 patients, which showed poor results (8%) with only 2 patients having leg length discrepancy more than 2.5 cm. Functional results were excellent in 84% (21/25), good in 8% (2/25), fair in 8% (2/25). Pin tract infection was seen in 5 cases, out of which 4 being superficial, which healed to dressings and antibiotics. One patient had a deep infection which required frame removal. CONCLUSION: Limb reconstruction system proved to be an effective modality of treatment in cases of open fractures of the tibia with bone loss as definite modality of treatment for damage control as well as for achieving union and lengthening, simultaneously, with the advantage of early union with attainment of limb length, simple surgical technique, minimal invasive, high patient compliance, easy wound management, lesser hospitalization and the lower rate of complications like infection, deformity or shortening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4510797
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45107972015-07-30 Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures Ajmera, Anand Verma, Ankit Agrawal, Mukul Jain, Saurabh Mukherjee, Arunangshu Indian J Orthop Original Article BACKGROUND: Management of open tibial diaphyseal fractures with bone loss is a matter of debate. The treatment options range from external fixators, nailing, ring fixators or grafting with or without plastic reconstruction. All the procedures have their own set of complications, like acute docking problems, shortening, difficulty in soft tissue management, chronic infection, increased morbidity, multiple surgeries, longer hospital stay, mal union, nonunion and higher patient dissatisfaction. We evaluated the outcome of the limb reconstruction system (LRS) in the treatment of open fractures of tibial diaphysis with bone loss as a definative mode of treatment to achieve union, as well as limb lengthening, simultaneously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty open fractures of tibial diaphysis with bone loss of at least 4 cm or more with a mean age 32.5 years were treated by using the LRS after debridement. Distraction osteogenesis at rate of 1 mm/day was done away from the fracture site to maintain the limb length. On the approximation of fracture ends, the dynamized LRS was left for further 15-20 weeks and patient was mobilized with weight bearing to achieve union. Functional assessment was done by Association for the Study and Application of the Methods of Illizarov (ASAMI) criteria. RESULTS: Mean followup period was 15 months. The mean bone loss was 5.5 cm (range 4-9 cm). The mean duration of bone transport was 13 weeks (range 8-30 weeks) with a mean time for LRS in place was 44 weeks (range 24-51 weeks). The mean implant index was 56.4 days/cm. Mean union time was 52 weeks (range 31-60 weeks) with mean union index of 74.5 days/cm. Bony results as per the ASAMI scoring were excellent in 76% (19/25), good in 12% (3/25) and fair in 4% (1/25) with union in all except 2 patients, which showed poor results (8%) with only 2 patients having leg length discrepancy more than 2.5 cm. Functional results were excellent in 84% (21/25), good in 8% (2/25), fair in 8% (2/25). Pin tract infection was seen in 5 cases, out of which 4 being superficial, which healed to dressings and antibiotics. One patient had a deep infection which required frame removal. CONCLUSION: Limb reconstruction system proved to be an effective modality of treatment in cases of open fractures of the tibia with bone loss as definite modality of treatment for damage control as well as for achieving union and lengthening, simultaneously, with the advantage of early union with attainment of limb length, simple surgical technique, minimal invasive, high patient compliance, easy wound management, lesser hospitalization and the lower rate of complications like infection, deformity or shortening. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4510797/ /pubmed/26229164 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.159638 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Orthopaedics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ajmera, Anand
Verma, Ankit
Agrawal, Mukul
Jain, Saurabh
Mukherjee, Arunangshu
Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures
title Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures
title_full Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures
title_fullStr Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures
title_full_unstemmed Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures
title_short Outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures
title_sort outcome of limb reconstruction system in open tibial diaphyseal fractures
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4510797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229164
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.159638
work_keys_str_mv AT ajmeraanand outcomeoflimbreconstructionsysteminopentibialdiaphysealfractures
AT vermaankit outcomeoflimbreconstructionsysteminopentibialdiaphysealfractures
AT agrawalmukul outcomeoflimbreconstructionsysteminopentibialdiaphysealfractures
AT jainsaurabh outcomeoflimbreconstructionsysteminopentibialdiaphysealfractures
AT mukherjeearunangshu outcomeoflimbreconstructionsysteminopentibialdiaphysealfractures