Cargando…

A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones

Introduction: Infected non-union of bones shows problems in providing stability and controlling the infection. The treatment comprises debridement with or without the use of antibiotic cement and achieving stability by either external or internal fixation with or without bone grafting. The use of an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bakshi, Amandeep S, Singh, Amandeep, Kaur, Harsimrat, Kaur, Gurleen, Singh, Jaspreet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9612901/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36320998
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29659
_version_ 1784819868871163904
author Bakshi, Amandeep S
Singh, Amandeep
Kaur, Harsimrat
Kaur, Gurleen
Singh, Jaspreet
author_facet Bakshi, Amandeep S
Singh, Amandeep
Kaur, Harsimrat
Kaur, Gurleen
Singh, Jaspreet
author_sort Bakshi, Amandeep S
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Infected non-union of bones shows problems in providing stability and controlling the infection. The treatment comprises debridement with or without the use of antibiotic cement and achieving stability by either external or internal fixation with or without bone grafting. The use of antibiotic-impregnated cement-coated intramedullary nailing gives stability and treats the infection, thereby permitting early mobilization. External fixation is a definitive mode of fracture stabilization indicated in cases of infected non-unions of the humerus, tibia, and juxta-articular bone. The present study was conducted to compare the results of management of infected non-union long bones treated with an external fixator (Ilizarov and Limb Reconstruction System (LRS)) and vancomycin-coated intramedullary nail. Materials and method: The present prospective study was conducted on 40 study subjects aged >18 years, and were randomly divided using the alternative method into two groups. Group A: 20 Patients were treated with antibiotic-coated intramedullary interlocking nail (ACIIN). Group B: 20 patients were treated with the external fixator (LRS/Ilizarov). All patients were then evaluated post-operatively using laboratory investigations, and for any sign of inflammation or infection. Results were evaluated using association for the study and application of methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) scoring system. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results: It was observed that 80.0% of patients in Group A, and 70% of subjects in Group B showed bony union, revealing a statistically significant (p-value<0.05) difference. Infection control, limb length discrepancy, and deformity were also assessed in both groups. Bone and functional outcomes were assessed using the ASAMI score in both groups. In LRS/Ilizarov, it was observed that 55% of subjects had no infection, 15% showed loosening, and 30% had an infection. Conclusion: The ACIIN should not be used for bone defects more than 4 cm as it does not achieve stability and for these cases, procedures like external fixators (Ilizarov and LRS) should be used. Antibiotic-coated nail eliminated the complications of the external fixators like pin loosening, and pin infections and was technically less demanding. In our study, stiffness of adjacent joints was more in external fixators (LRS/Ilizarov) than ACIIN.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9612901
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96129012022-10-31 A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones Bakshi, Amandeep S Singh, Amandeep Kaur, Harsimrat Kaur, Gurleen Singh, Jaspreet Cureus Orthopedics Introduction: Infected non-union of bones shows problems in providing stability and controlling the infection. The treatment comprises debridement with or without the use of antibiotic cement and achieving stability by either external or internal fixation with or without bone grafting. The use of antibiotic-impregnated cement-coated intramedullary nailing gives stability and treats the infection, thereby permitting early mobilization. External fixation is a definitive mode of fracture stabilization indicated in cases of infected non-unions of the humerus, tibia, and juxta-articular bone. The present study was conducted to compare the results of management of infected non-union long bones treated with an external fixator (Ilizarov and Limb Reconstruction System (LRS)) and vancomycin-coated intramedullary nail. Materials and method: The present prospective study was conducted on 40 study subjects aged >18 years, and were randomly divided using the alternative method into two groups. Group A: 20 Patients were treated with antibiotic-coated intramedullary interlocking nail (ACIIN). Group B: 20 patients were treated with the external fixator (LRS/Ilizarov). All patients were then evaluated post-operatively using laboratory investigations, and for any sign of inflammation or infection. Results were evaluated using association for the study and application of methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) scoring system. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results: It was observed that 80.0% of patients in Group A, and 70% of subjects in Group B showed bony union, revealing a statistically significant (p-value<0.05) difference. Infection control, limb length discrepancy, and deformity were also assessed in both groups. Bone and functional outcomes were assessed using the ASAMI score in both groups. In LRS/Ilizarov, it was observed that 55% of subjects had no infection, 15% showed loosening, and 30% had an infection. Conclusion: The ACIIN should not be used for bone defects more than 4 cm as it does not achieve stability and for these cases, procedures like external fixators (Ilizarov and LRS) should be used. Antibiotic-coated nail eliminated the complications of the external fixators like pin loosening, and pin infections and was technically less demanding. In our study, stiffness of adjacent joints was more in external fixators (LRS/Ilizarov) than ACIIN. Cureus 2022-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9612901/ /pubmed/36320998 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29659 Text en Copyright © 2022, Bakshi et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Orthopedics
Bakshi, Amandeep S
Singh, Amandeep
Kaur, Harsimrat
Kaur, Gurleen
Singh, Jaspreet
A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones
title A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones
title_full A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones
title_fullStr A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones
title_short A Comparative Study of Treatment With External Fixator Versus Antibiotic Coated Intramedullary Nail in Infected Non-union Long Bones
title_sort comparative study of treatment with external fixator versus antibiotic coated intramedullary nail in infected non-union long bones
topic Orthopedics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9612901/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36320998
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29659
work_keys_str_mv AT bakshiamandeeps acomparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT singhamandeep acomparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT kaurharsimrat acomparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT kaurgurleen acomparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT singhjaspreet acomparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT bakshiamandeeps comparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT singhamandeep comparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT kaurharsimrat comparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT kaurgurleen comparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones
AT singhjaspreet comparativestudyoftreatmentwithexternalfixatorversusantibioticcoatedintramedullarynailininfectednonunionlongbones