Cargando…

Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study

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 us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abulaiti, Alimujiang, Liu, Yanshi, Cai, Feiyu, Liu, Kai, Abula, Abulaiti, Maimaiti, Xiayimaierdan, Ren, Peng, Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36034365
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.858240
_version_ 1784774141297033216
author Abulaiti, Alimujiang
Liu, Yanshi
Cai, Feiyu
Liu, Kai
Abula, Abulaiti
Maimaiti, Xiayimaierdan
Ren, Peng
Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
author_facet Abulaiti, Alimujiang
Liu, Yanshi
Cai, Feiyu
Liu, Kai
Abula, Abulaiti
Maimaiti, Xiayimaierdan
Ren, Peng
Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
author_sort Abulaiti, Alimujiang
collection PubMed
description 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. METHODS: A total of 53 consecutive patients with long segmental tibial bone defects caused by infection and treated by monolateral rail external fixator in our department were retrospectively collected and analyzed from the period January 2013 to April 2019, including 39 males and 14 females with an average age of 38.8 ± 12.4 years (range 19–65 years). Out of these, 32 patients were treated by the BFT technique, and the remaining 21 patients were managed by the TFT technique. The demographic data, operation duration (OD), docking time (DT), external fixation time (EFT), and external fixation index (EFI) were documented and analyzed. Difficulties that occur during the treatment were classified according to Paley. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by following the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) criteria at the last clinical visit. RESULTS: All patients achieved an infection-free union finally, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic data and both ASAMI bone and functional scores (p > 0.05). The mean defect size and OD in TFT (9.4 ± 1.5 cm, 161.9 ± 8.9 min) were larger than that in BFT (7.8 ± 1.8 cm, 122.5 ± 11.2 min) (p < 0.05). The mean DT, EFT, and EFI in TFT (65.9 ± 10.8 days, 328.0 ± 57.2 days, 34.8 ± 2.1 days/cm) were all less than those in BFT (96.8 ± 22.6 days, 474.5 ± 103.2 days, 60.8 ± 1.9 days/cm) (p < 0.05). Difficulties and complications were more prevalent in the BFT group than in the TFT group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both the trifocal and BFT techniques achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes in the reconstruction of long segmental tibial bone defects caused by infection using a monolateral rail external fixator. The TFT technique can significantly decrease the DT, EFT, EFI, difficulties, and complications compared with the BFT technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9406520
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94065202022-08-26 Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study Abulaiti, Alimujiang Liu, Yanshi Cai, Feiyu Liu, Kai Abula, Abulaiti Maimaiti, Xiayimaierdan Ren, Peng Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang Front Surg Surgery 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. METHODS: A total of 53 consecutive patients with long segmental tibial bone defects caused by infection and treated by monolateral rail external fixator in our department were retrospectively collected and analyzed from the period January 2013 to April 2019, including 39 males and 14 females with an average age of 38.8 ± 12.4 years (range 19–65 years). Out of these, 32 patients were treated by the BFT technique, and the remaining 21 patients were managed by the TFT technique. The demographic data, operation duration (OD), docking time (DT), external fixation time (EFT), and external fixation index (EFI) were documented and analyzed. Difficulties that occur during the treatment were classified according to Paley. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by following the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) criteria at the last clinical visit. RESULTS: All patients achieved an infection-free union finally, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic data and both ASAMI bone and functional scores (p > 0.05). The mean defect size and OD in TFT (9.4 ± 1.5 cm, 161.9 ± 8.9 min) were larger than that in BFT (7.8 ± 1.8 cm, 122.5 ± 11.2 min) (p < 0.05). The mean DT, EFT, and EFI in TFT (65.9 ± 10.8 days, 328.0 ± 57.2 days, 34.8 ± 2.1 days/cm) were all less than those in BFT (96.8 ± 22.6 days, 474.5 ± 103.2 days, 60.8 ± 1.9 days/cm) (p < 0.05). Difficulties and complications were more prevalent in the BFT group than in the TFT group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both the trifocal and BFT techniques achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes in the reconstruction of long segmental tibial bone defects caused by infection using a monolateral rail external fixator. The TFT technique can significantly decrease the DT, EFT, EFI, difficulties, and complications compared with the BFT technique. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9406520/ /pubmed/36034365 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.858240 Text en Copyright © 2022 Abulaiti, Liu, Cai, Liu, Abula, Maimaiti, Ren and Yusufu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Abulaiti, Alimujiang
Liu, Yanshi
Cai, Feiyu
Liu, Kai
Abula, Abulaiti
Maimaiti, Xiayimaierdan
Ren, Peng
Yusufu, Aihemaitijiang
Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_full Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_fullStr Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_short Bone Defects in Tibia Managed by the Bifocal vs. Trifocal Bone Transport Technique: A Retrospective Comparative Study
title_sort bone defects in tibia managed by the bifocal vs. trifocal bone transport technique: a retrospective comparative study
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9406520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36034365
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.858240
work_keys_str_mv AT abulaitialimujiang bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy
AT liuyanshi bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy
AT caifeiyu bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy
AT liukai bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy
AT abulaabulaiti bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy
AT maimaitixiayimaierdan bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy
AT renpeng bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy
AT yusufuaihemaitijiang bonedefectsintibiamanagedbythebifocalvstrifocalbonetransporttechniquearetrospectivecomparativestudy