Background. Bone defects represent the main challenging problem for the orthopedic surgeon and, consequently, they increase the duration of hospitalization, risk of complications and health expenditures. The aim of our observational, descriptive and retrospective study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with a monolateral external fixator for bone defects greater than 3 cm. Material and methods. Between January 2003 and January 2013, 21 patients were treated at our center by bone transfer with a monolateral external fixator. The main etiologies were trauma in 17 cases (80.9%) and tumors in 4 cases (19.1%). Mean follow-up was 5 years for non-union and 3 years for tumors. Our clinical evaluation was based on ASAMI (Association for the Study ad Application of the Methods of Ilizarov) scores during this follow-up period. Results. The functional outcomes, based on ASAMI scores, were excellent in 12 cases, good in 7 and poor in 2. Conclusions. 1. A review of the literature related to our experience shows that bone transport is an effective technique to repair loss of bone in the lower limbs. The use of a system of external fixation enables corrective actions throughout the treatment that can be individualized on a case-by-case basis. In our experience, the LRS fixator (Orthofix) is a stable, easy-to-use and very handy device. 2. In situations where soft tissue reconstruction procedures are needed, the size and shape of the splint should be such as not to constitute an obstacle. Fur-thermore, the use of pins rather than transfixation wires eliminates the risk of neuro/vascular injury such as may occur during the application of a circular fixator. 3. The analysis of the cases presented here indicates that where possible the technique of bone transport produces good results and can often salvage the limb. Amputation should be reserved only for cases where the general and/or local preoperative status indicate that the surgeon can expect a poor result or when the compliance of the patient is determined to be inadequate.
The challenges of monoaxial bone transport in orthopedics and traumatology
Bisaccia, Michele;Rinonapoli, Giuseppe;Caraffa, Auro;
2017
Abstract
Background. Bone defects represent the main challenging problem for the orthopedic surgeon and, consequently, they increase the duration of hospitalization, risk of complications and health expenditures. The aim of our observational, descriptive and retrospective study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with a monolateral external fixator for bone defects greater than 3 cm. Material and methods. Between January 2003 and January 2013, 21 patients were treated at our center by bone transfer with a monolateral external fixator. The main etiologies were trauma in 17 cases (80.9%) and tumors in 4 cases (19.1%). Mean follow-up was 5 years for non-union and 3 years for tumors. Our clinical evaluation was based on ASAMI (Association for the Study ad Application of the Methods of Ilizarov) scores during this follow-up period. Results. The functional outcomes, based on ASAMI scores, were excellent in 12 cases, good in 7 and poor in 2. Conclusions. 1. A review of the literature related to our experience shows that bone transport is an effective technique to repair loss of bone in the lower limbs. The use of a system of external fixation enables corrective actions throughout the treatment that can be individualized on a case-by-case basis. In our experience, the LRS fixator (Orthofix) is a stable, easy-to-use and very handy device. 2. In situations where soft tissue reconstruction procedures are needed, the size and shape of the splint should be such as not to constitute an obstacle. Fur-thermore, the use of pins rather than transfixation wires eliminates the risk of neuro/vascular injury such as may occur during the application of a circular fixator. 3. The analysis of the cases presented here indicates that where possible the technique of bone transport produces good results and can often salvage the limb. Amputation should be reserved only for cases where the general and/or local preoperative status indicate that the surgeon can expect a poor result or when the compliance of the patient is determined to be inadequate.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
