Dataset Information

Novel piston technique versus Ilizarov technique for the repair of bone defect after lower limb infection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to compare the effectiveness and complications of a novel piston technique versus the Ilizarov technique for the repair of bone defects after lower limb infection.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 41 patients who had been treated at our department for lower extremity bone defects following osteomyelitis. There were 38 men and three women with a mean age of 43.41 (range, 12-69 years). The infected bone defects involved 36 tibias and five femurs. The piston technique (PT, group A) was used in 12 patients and the Ilizarov technique (IT, group B) in 29 patients. The mean follow-up period was 28.50 months (PT) and 29.90 months (IT). The modified Application of Methods of Illizarov (ASAMI) criteria was used to evaluate bone healing and functional recovery.

Results

Complete eradication of the infection and union of docking sites were accomplished in both groups. The mean external fixator index (EFI) was 42.32 days/cm in group A versus 58.85 days/cm in group B (p < 0.001). The bone outcomes were similar between groups A and B (p = 0.558) (excellent [9 vs. 19], good [3 vs.10]); group A showed better functional outcomes than group B (p < 0.05) (excellent [7 vs. 6], good [4 vs. 12], fair [0 vs. 10] and poor [1 vs. 1]). Pain was the most common complaint during follow-up, and group A had fewer cases of pin tract infection (1 vs. 6), adjacent joint stiffness (3 vs. 8), and delayed healing of the joint (0 vs. 3).

Conclusions

Satisfactory bone healing can be achieved by using both PT and IT, although PT demonstrated better functional results, lower EFI, and allowed early removal of the external fixation. We found that this novel piston technique can improve the comfort of patients, reduce the incidence of complications, and provide rapid and convenient rehabilitation.

SUBMITTER: Du J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8642891 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe task faced by surgeons becomes significantly more challenging when they encounter lower extremity bone defects due to a variety of causes requiring lengthening. The most discussed and successful approach is the Illizarov technique, or lengthening over a nail (LON):distraction osteogenesis is also widely performed with monoliteral external fixators and intramedullarylengthening nails have increasingly been used in the last decade.MethodsThe data were collected from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and the Web of Science for all available studies comparing the outcomes of Ilizarov technique alone and LON technique (from January 1, 1997, to November 30, 2023). The outcomes of interest encompassed the external fixation index (EFI) (month/cm), mean duration of follow-up (MFT) (month), length gained (LG) (cm), consolidation index (CIx) (month/cm), and bone healing index (BHI) (month/cm).Complications include pin tract infection rate (PTI), axial deviation rate (AD), occurrence of intramedullary infection (II), delayed consolidation rate (DC), as well as data categorized into three levels of problems, obstacles, and sequelae based on the severity of complications.Two reviewers independently assessed each study for quality and extracted data. The case-control or respective cohort studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) to determine their techniqueological rigor.The Cochrane Collaboration's risk assessment tool was employed to perform quality evaluations for randomized controlled trials.ResultsThis review included thirteen studies comprising a total of 629 patients.The external fixation index (month/cm) was significantly smaller in the LON technique compared to the Ilizarov technique alone [Mean Difference(MD) = -29.59, 95% CI -39.68--19.49, P < 0.00001].In terms of the mean follow-up time(month) (MD = -0.92, 95% CI -3.49-1.65, P = 0.57), length gained (cm) (MD = -0.87, 95%CI -2.80-1.07, P = 0.38), consolidation index (month/cm) (MD = 0.66, 95% CI -3.44-4.77, P = 0.75), and bone healing index (month/cm) (MD = -3.33, 95% CI -13.07-6.41, P = 0.5), there were no significant differences observed. The LON technique exhibited a lower incidence of axial deviation [Odds Ratio(OR) = 0.06, 95%CI 0.03-0.16, P < 0.00001] and pin tract infection (OR = 0.30, 95%CI 0.18-0.50, P < 0.00001) compared to the Ilizarov technique alone.The remaining complications, such as intramedullary infection rate (OR = 0.93, 95%CI 0.42-2.06, P = 0.85) and delayed consolidation rate(OR = 0.61, 95%CI 0.20-1.86, P = 0.38), did not exhibit statistically significant differences.Our findings demonstrated that the LON technique results in lower incidences of problems (38.5%vs.58.6%) and sequelae (16.6% vs.30.9%) when compared to the Ilizarov technique alone. However, the rates of obstacles (32.4% vs.32.3%) were comparable between the two methods.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that patients treated with the LON technique experienced significantly shorter external fixation durations and a lower incidence of complications (e.g., pin tract infections and axial deviation) compared to those treated with the Ilizarov technique alone. Other outcome metrics showed no significant differences between the two techniques. However, the LON technique offers substantial benefits, including reduced external fixation times and increased comfort, which enhance patient compliance. In conclusion, the LON technique is a safe, reliable, and effective method for treating tibial and femoral defects.

Project description:BackgroundIlizarov method has become one of primary methods for treating bone defects. Currently, there is growing trend in the application of modified Ilizarov methods (e.g., applying unilateral external fixators or with flap tissue) and its combined methods (e.g., Ilizarov method with antibiotic spacer or internal fixation) to manage bone defects. However, there is a lack of studies with systematical evaluation of the clinical effects of these evolving methods. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for overall evaluating the clinical effects on long bone defects of lower extremity in Ilizarov methods and its combined methods.MethodsStudies were identified in three electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library) from the earliest indexing year through November 01, 2022, and relevant data were extracted subsequently. The total number of participants, number of participants with bone unions, bone result or functional result, and related complications including pin infection, pin loosening, pain, refracture, limb discrepancy, malalignment, joint stiffness, recurrent infection, and amputation were extracted in this study. Then, union rate (defined as the proportion of patients who achieved bone unions) and specific complication incidence rate (defined as the proportion of patients who experienced specific complication) were pooled estimated respectively. Relative risk (RR) was used for comparing the clinical effects among various Ilizarov technique.ResultsSixty-eight case series studies, 29 comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials were finally included. The union rate of Ilizarov methods was 99.29% (95% CI: 98.67% ~ 99.86%) in tibial defects and 98.81% (95% CI: 98.81% ~ 100.00%) in femoral defects. The union rate of Ilizarov method with antibiotic spacer and intramedullary nail in tibial defects was 99.58% (95% CI: 98.05% ~ 100.00%) and 95.02% (95% CI: 87.28% ~ 100.00%), respectively. Compared to the Ilizarov methods, the union rate of the Ilizarov method with antibiotic spacer in tibial defects increased slightly (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01 ~ 1.04). Meanwhile, compared to Ilizarov methods, we found lower excellent rate in bone result in Ilizarov method with antibiotic spacer, with the moderate to high heterogeneity. Compared to the Ilizarov method, lower rate of pin infection, higher rate of recurrent infection and amputation were observed in Ilizarov method with intramedullary nail, however, the findings about the comparison of pin infection and recurrent infection between the two groups were presented with high degree of statistical heterogeneity.ConclusionOur study confirmed the reliable treatment of Ilizarov methods and its combined technique on long bone defects, and founded there were significant differences on some complications rate between Ilizarov methods and its combined technique. However, the findings need to be confirmed by further studies.