Cargando…

Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study

BACKGROUND: About 70 million trauma injuries that occur annually, around the world. More than 4.5 million open fractures occur per year in India. Long bone fractures nonunion (NU) rate varies from 2% to 7%. The management of open fracture is challenging for the orthopedic surgeon. The conventional p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bhardwaj, Ravisha, Singh, Jaspal, Kapila, Rajesh, Boparai, Randhir S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30905986
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_77_17
_version_ 1783398838733635584
author Bhardwaj, Ravisha
Singh, Jaspal
Kapila, Rajesh
Boparai, Randhir S
author_facet Bhardwaj, Ravisha
Singh, Jaspal
Kapila, Rajesh
Boparai, Randhir S
author_sort Bhardwaj, Ravisha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: About 70 million trauma injuries that occur annually, around the world. More than 4.5 million open fractures occur per year in India. Long bone fractures nonunion (NU) rate varies from 2% to 7%. The management of open fracture is challenging for the orthopedic surgeon. The conventional protocol of management of compound fracture are debridement, temporary stabilization by external fixators, wound and definitive management. Very few prospective studies have been done comparing Illizarov and RF in infected nonunion. Thus we performed a retrospective study to compare the acceptance, complications, and functional outcome of Ilizarov ring fixator (IRF) and rail fixator (RF) in the treatment of infected NU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of fifty infected long bone NU patients, who consulted Orthopedics Department of a tertiary care hospital of North-India from 2010 to 2014 was undertaken. Patients were divided into two Groups (Gp) of 25 each: one group was treated with IRF, another with RF and both followed for one year. Results were analyzed as per the ASAMI criteria (Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Illizarov) and complications as per Paley's classification. Patient's satisfaction was assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100 mm. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were in age group of 31- 45 years males with right sided involvement with previously treated infected NU of tibia involving distal one-third. According to VAS score, patients had mild to moderate pain in 13 cases in Gp-IRF and in 16 cases in Gp-RF, whereas severe pain was present in 12 cases of Gp-IRF and 9 cases of Gp-RF. Pin tract infection and pain were the commonest complication. Mean bone gap was 7.76 cm and 5.78 cm; average total treatment time was 17.64 and 13.40 months in Gp-IRF and Gp-RF, respectively. Duration of IRF application was more than RF (P < 0.01). Both the limbs were equated in 20 cases (80%) in Gp-IRF and 18 cases (72%) in Gp-RF. Results were found to be excellent in 7 (28%) and 8 (32%), good in 8 (32%) and 13 (52%), and fair in 10 (40%) and 4 (16%) cases in Gp-IRF and Gp-RF, respectively. Bony union achieved in 100% cases. Treatment index was 68.45 days/cm and 64.29 days/cm in Gp-IRF and Gp-RF, respectively. CONCLUSION: In view of the patient acceptance, functional outcome and complications, rail fixator shows a better result than Ilizarov.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6394165
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63941652019-03-22 Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study Bhardwaj, Ravisha Singh, Jaspal Kapila, Rajesh Boparai, Randhir S Indian J Orthop Original Article BACKGROUND: About 70 million trauma injuries that occur annually, around the world. More than 4.5 million open fractures occur per year in India. Long bone fractures nonunion (NU) rate varies from 2% to 7%. The management of open fracture is challenging for the orthopedic surgeon. The conventional protocol of management of compound fracture are debridement, temporary stabilization by external fixators, wound and definitive management. Very few prospective studies have been done comparing Illizarov and RF in infected nonunion. Thus we performed a retrospective study to compare the acceptance, complications, and functional outcome of Ilizarov ring fixator (IRF) and rail fixator (RF) in the treatment of infected NU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of fifty infected long bone NU patients, who consulted Orthopedics Department of a tertiary care hospital of North-India from 2010 to 2014 was undertaken. Patients were divided into two Groups (Gp) of 25 each: one group was treated with IRF, another with RF and both followed for one year. Results were analyzed as per the ASAMI criteria (Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Illizarov) and complications as per Paley's classification. Patient's satisfaction was assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100 mm. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were in age group of 31- 45 years males with right sided involvement with previously treated infected NU of tibia involving distal one-third. According to VAS score, patients had mild to moderate pain in 13 cases in Gp-IRF and in 16 cases in Gp-RF, whereas severe pain was present in 12 cases of Gp-IRF and 9 cases of Gp-RF. Pin tract infection and pain were the commonest complication. Mean bone gap was 7.76 cm and 5.78 cm; average total treatment time was 17.64 and 13.40 months in Gp-IRF and Gp-RF, respectively. Duration of IRF application was more than RF (P < 0.01). Both the limbs were equated in 20 cases (80%) in Gp-IRF and 18 cases (72%) in Gp-RF. Results were found to be excellent in 7 (28%) and 8 (32%), good in 8 (32%) and 13 (52%), and fair in 10 (40%) and 4 (16%) cases in Gp-IRF and Gp-RF, respectively. Bony union achieved in 100% cases. Treatment index was 68.45 days/cm and 64.29 days/cm in Gp-IRF and Gp-RF, respectively. CONCLUSION: In view of the patient acceptance, functional outcome and complications, rail fixator shows a better result than Ilizarov. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6394165/ /pubmed/30905986 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_77_17 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Indian Journal of Orthopaedics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bhardwaj, Ravisha
Singh, Jaspal
Kapila, Rajesh
Boparai, Randhir S
Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study
title Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study
title_full Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study
title_fullStr Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study
title_short Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: A Retrospective Followup Study
title_sort comparision of ilizarov ring fixator and rail fixator in infected nonunion of long bones: a retrospective followup study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30905986
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_77_17
work_keys_str_mv AT bhardwajravisha comparisionofilizarovringfixatorandrailfixatorininfectednonunionoflongbonesaretrospectivefollowupstudy
AT singhjaspal comparisionofilizarovringfixatorandrailfixatorininfectednonunionoflongbonesaretrospectivefollowupstudy
AT kapilarajesh comparisionofilizarovringfixatorandrailfixatorininfectednonunionoflongbonesaretrospectivefollowupstudy
AT boparairandhirs comparisionofilizarovringfixatorandrailfixatorininfectednonunionoflongbonesaretrospectivefollowupstudy