Infected bone defects in the lower limb. Management by means of a two-stage distraction osteogenesis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Although bone transport is generally accepted as the gold standard for the treatment of segmental septic bone defects, some aspects of its practical application are still open to debate. We present our results in this field and compare them with the series published so far. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed all our patients (2010-2018) that underwent a bone transport procedure in the lower limb due to a septic bone defect. We calculated the bone healing index (BHI), the external fixation index (EFI), the rate of complications and the clinical results. We statistically compared our results with 63 publications with a similar scope. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (30 M/5F) with a mean age of 40 years and a mean follow-up of 45 months were included. Bone segment was 24 T/11F and mean defect was 8.4 cm (7.34 T/ 10.73F). Mean global BHI was 45.62 days/cm (48.16 T/40.09F). Mean EFI was 2.37 months/cm. Results were excellent in 9 patients, good in 23 and bad in 3. Bone graft was used in 60% of the cases. DISCUSSION: The size of our series is similar to previously published ones, although the mean age of our patients is higher and they present a larger bone defect. BHI of our series is similar to that of other series, although EFI is significantly higher. The number of complications is also in line with the existing literature. CONCLUSION: The use of a two-stage technique for managing segmental bone defects of septic origin in the lower extremity is a valid alternative. Our series shows results comparable to the current literature.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of a single LP-PRP injection, a single hyaluronic acid injection and daily NSAID administration with a 52-week follow-up: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease with a high prevalence in the adult population. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or intra-articular injections [hyaluronic acid (HA) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP)] can provide clinical benefit. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has proven to be useful for the evaluation of cartilage volume and thickness in knee osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit provided by PRP injection in comparison with hyaluronic acid and NSAID in knee OA patients and to compare the radiographic evolution at the 52-week follow-up. METHODS: One hundred and six patients were enrolled and randomized according to the Spanish Rheumatology Society knee osteoarthritis diagnosis criteria. Ninety-eight patients completed the study (33 received NSAID treatment, 32 a single hyaluronic acid injection and 33 a single PRP injection). Patients were prospectively evaluated at baseline, 26 and 52 weeks using the Western Ontario McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the visual analogue scale (VAS), and at baseline and 52 weeks with X-ray and MRI. RESULTS: A 20% decrease in WOMAC pain and increase in physical function was found in 30 and 24%, respectively, of those patients who received PRP treatment, at the 52-week follow-up. WOMAC pain and VAS improved in the hyaluronic acid and NSAID groups. However, better results were obtained in the PRP group compared to hyaluronic acid and NSAIDs (P < 0.05). No differences in Kellgren-Lawrence or cartilage thickness progression were found. CONCLUSIONS: Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) injections are better in terms of clinical improvement with respect to HA injections or oral NSAID treatment in knee osteoarthritis patients at the 52-week follow-up. Moreover, a single LP-PRP injection is effective. However, LP-PRP has no influence on cartilage progression. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.