Cargando…

Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator

BACKGROUND: External fixation, which can preserve the biomechanical microenvironment of fracture healing, plays an important role in managing the high-energy fractures with poor surrounding soft tissues. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences of clinical outcomes, if any, between...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Yanshi, Liu, Kai, Cai, Feiyu, Zhang, Xingpeng, Li, Hong, Zhang, Tao, Ma, Chuang, Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8991465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35395846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05257-1
_version_ 1784683573518794752
author Liu, Yanshi
Liu, Kai
Cai, Feiyu
Zhang, Xingpeng
Li, Hong
Zhang, Tao
Ma, Chuang
Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
author_facet Liu, Yanshi
Liu, Kai
Cai, Feiyu
Zhang, Xingpeng
Li, Hong
Zhang, Tao
Ma, Chuang
Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
author_sort Liu, Yanshi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: External fixation, which can preserve the biomechanical microenvironment of fracture healing, plays an important role in managing the high-energy fractures with poor surrounding soft tissues. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences of clinical outcomes, if any, between hexapod external fixator and monolateral external fixator in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures. METHODS: A total of 53 patients with high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures and definitively treated by the hexapod external fixator (HEF) or monolateral external fixator (MEF) were retrospectively collected and analyzed, from March 2015 to June 2019. There were 31 patients in the HEF treatment, and the other 22 patients were managed by the MEF. The demographic data, surgical duration, external fixation time, final radiological results, complications, and clinical outcomes were documented and analyzed. Difficulties that occurred during the treatment were classified according to Paley. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov criteria (ASAMI) at the last clinical visit. RESULTS: The mean surgical duration in the HEF group (62.4 ± 8.3 min) was shorter than that in the MEF group (91.4 ± 6.9 min) (P < 0.05). All patients acquired complete bone union finally. Patients in the HEF group (24.2 ± 3.1 weeks) underwent a shorter average external fixation time than that in the MEF group (26.3 ± 3.8 weeks) (P < 0.05). Satisfactory alignment was achieved in all patients without the need for remanipulation. The residual sagittal plane deformities in the HEF group were all less than that in the MEF group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was 35.5% in the HEF group, while 45.5% in the MEF group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in ASAMI scores (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference in finally clinical outcomes between hexapod external fixator and monolateral external fixator in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures. The hexapod external fixation treatment is a superior effective method, including advantages of stable fixation, less surgical duration, postoperatively satisfactory fracture reduction, and fewer complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8991465
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89914652022-04-09 Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator Liu, Yanshi Liu, Kai Cai, Feiyu Zhang, Xingpeng Li, Hong Zhang, Tao Ma, Chuang Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: External fixation, which can preserve the biomechanical microenvironment of fracture healing, plays an important role in managing the high-energy fractures with poor surrounding soft tissues. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences of clinical outcomes, if any, between hexapod external fixator and monolateral external fixator in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures. METHODS: A total of 53 patients with high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures and definitively treated by the hexapod external fixator (HEF) or monolateral external fixator (MEF) were retrospectively collected and analyzed, from March 2015 to June 2019. There were 31 patients in the HEF treatment, and the other 22 patients were managed by the MEF. The demographic data, surgical duration, external fixation time, final radiological results, complications, and clinical outcomes were documented and analyzed. Difficulties that occurred during the treatment were classified according to Paley. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov criteria (ASAMI) at the last clinical visit. RESULTS: The mean surgical duration in the HEF group (62.4 ± 8.3 min) was shorter than that in the MEF group (91.4 ± 6.9 min) (P < 0.05). All patients acquired complete bone union finally. Patients in the HEF group (24.2 ± 3.1 weeks) underwent a shorter average external fixation time than that in the MEF group (26.3 ± 3.8 weeks) (P < 0.05). Satisfactory alignment was achieved in all patients without the need for remanipulation. The residual sagittal plane deformities in the HEF group were all less than that in the MEF group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was 35.5% in the HEF group, while 45.5% in the MEF group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in ASAMI scores (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference in finally clinical outcomes between hexapod external fixator and monolateral external fixator in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures. The hexapod external fixation treatment is a superior effective method, including advantages of stable fixation, less surgical duration, postoperatively satisfactory fracture reduction, and fewer complications. BioMed Central 2022-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8991465/ /pubmed/35395846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05257-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Liu, Yanshi
Liu, Kai
Cai, Feiyu
Zhang, Xingpeng
Li, Hong
Zhang, Tao
Ma, Chuang
Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator
title Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator
title_full Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator
title_fullStr Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator
title_short Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator
title_sort retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8991465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35395846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05257-1
work_keys_str_mv AT liuyanshi retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator
AT liukai retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator
AT caifeiyu retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator
AT zhangxingpeng retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator
AT lihong retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator
AT zhangtao retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator
AT machuang retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator
AT yusufuaihemaitijiang retrospectiveclinicaloutcomesinthedefinitivetreatmentofhighenergytibialdiaphysealfracturesusinghexapodexternalfixatorversusmonolateralexternalfixator