Outcomes of Primary Ilizarov Ring Fixator for Segmental Tibial Fracture with Compromised Skin: A Prospective Study
Abstract
Background: Tibial diaphyseal fracture is the most commonly encountered fracture in orthopedic practice. There are various methods to treat the same, ranging from conservative to operative treatment. The operative methods include internal fixation using nailing and plating and external fixation using fixator/ring fixator. This study aims to evaluate the results of primary treatment of segmental tibial fracture in patients with a compromised skin condition using the Ilizarov fixator and look for complications.
Methods: This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary level health care center. It included a series of 40 patients with segmental tibial fractures. Classification of the segmental tibial fractures was done according to Melis et al. The fixator was designed with three fixation blocks and two working length sections. The patients were evaluated for the progression clinically and radiographically at 2-week intervals for the first 2 months and were then followed by 4-week intervals. Results were evaluated according to the Association for the Study and Application of the Methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) classification.
Results: We treated 40 patients with a segmental tibial fracture with compromised skin using the Ilizarov ring fixator. Patients were followed up after surgery with an average follow-up of 13.8 months. The average union time came out to be 27.6 weeks for the proximal segment and 33.31 weeks for the distal segment. Out of the total patients, 15 (37.5%) patients had pin tract infection, and one (2.7%) patient had nonunion, which later required bone grafting. Bone results of patients at final follow-up as evaluated by ASAMI score were 91.7% excellent, 5.6% good, and 2.7% poor. Functional results of patients at final follow-up as evaluated by ASAMI score were 80.5% excellent, 1.7% good, and 2.8% poor.
Conclusion: In the existing literature, segmental tibial fractures have always been difficult to treat. They are associated with high complication rates due to the lack of surrounding soft tissues. The proximal and distal fragments may be more difficult to treat because of the serious direct injury to the soft tissues overlying the segment and the difficulty stabilizing this bone segment with implants. With the use of Ilizarov technique, there is a good mean time to union, a low rate of reoperations, and good functional and general health-status outcome.
2. Audige L, Griffin D, Bhandari M, Kellam J, Ruedi TP. Path analysis of factors for delayed healing and nonunion in 416 operatively treated tibial shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:221- 32. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000163836.66906.74. [PubMed: 16131895].
3. Chapman MW. Fractures of the shafts of the tibia and fibula. In: Chapman MW, editors. Chapman's orthopaedic surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincot Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 417-38.
4. Atkins RM, Sudhakar JE, Porteous AJ. Distraction osteogenesis through high energy fractures. Injury. 1998;29(7):535-7. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(98)00128-4. [PubMed: 10193497].
5. Rydholm U. Transosseous osteosynthesis-theoretical and clinical aspects of the regeneration and growth of tissue: Gavril A. IlizaroV, 800 pages, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1992 ISBN 3-540-53534-9. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica. 1992;63(2):236-37. doi: 10.3109/17453679209154834.
6. Tull F, Borrelli J. Soft-tissue injury associated with closed fractures: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(6):431-8. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200311000-00007.
[PubMed: 14686828].
7. Melis GC, Sotgiu F, Lepori M, Guido P. Intramedullary nailing in segmental tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(8):1310-8. [PubMed: 7287803].
8. Giotakis N, Panchani SK, Narayan B, Larkin JJ, Al MS, Nayagam
S. Segmental fractures of the tibia treated by circular external fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(5):687-92. 10.1302/0301- 620X.92B5.22514. [PubMed: 20436007].
9. Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(250):81-104. [PubMed: 2403498].
10. Abdelsatar T, Elsawy M, Zayda A, Samy A. Management of segmental tibial fractures by an Ilizarov external fixator. Menoufia Medical Journal. 2016;29(3):680-4. doi: 10.4103/1110-2098.198754.
11. Foster PAL, BartonS, Jones SCE, Britten S. Treatment of segmental tibial fractures by the Ilizarov method: An update. Orthop Proc. 2012;94-B(Suppl_XXI):98. doi: 10.1302/1358- 992X.94BSUPP_XXI.Combined2010-098.
12. Bari MM, Islam S, AHMA R, Rahman M (2015) Management of Segmental Fracture Tibia by Ilizarov Technique. MOJ Orthop Rheumatol. 3(3):00097. doi: 10.15406/mojor.2015.03.00097.
13. O'Connor M, Marais L, Ferreira N. Outcomes of segmental tibia fractures treated with circular external fixation at a single centre in a developing world setting. SA Orthopaedic Journal. 2018;17(3):41-6. doi: 10.17159/2309-8309/2018/v17n3a5.
14. Robertson A, Giannoudis PV, Matthews SJ. Maintaining reduction during unreamed nailing of a segmental tibial fracture: the use of a Farabeuf clamp. Injury. 2003;34(5):389-91. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00195-4.
15. Woll TS, Duwelius PJ. The segmental tibial fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;(281):204-7. [PubMed: 1499212].
16. Ozturkmen Y, Karamehmetoglu M, Karadeniz H, Azboy I, Caniklioglu M. Acute treatment of segmental tibial fractures with the Ilizarov method. Injury. 2009;40(3):321-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.07.013. [PubMed: 19243774].
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 8, No 4 (2022) | |
| Section | Research Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jost.v8i4.10449 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Fractures Multiple Tibia Ilizarov Technique | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
