Complications and Effectiveness of Intramedullary Limb Lengthening: A Matched Pair Analysis of Two Different Lengthening Nails.

BACKGROUND: Intramedullary limb lengthening has become an accepted concept in reconstructive surgery, but as yet comparative clinical studies are missing. We compared the complications and effectiveness of two types of intramedullary limb lengthening devices (ISKD®; Fitbone®). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective series of 278 consecutive patients with internal limb lengthening, we found 17 matching pairs in terms of predefined matching parameters (group I with ISKD® and group II with Fitbone®). The surgeries were all performed with the same technique and managed with equivalent pre- and postoperative treatment protocols. The performance of the implants was evaluated using the distraction index and the weight-bearing index. Complications were rated according to Paley's classification for external lengthening. RESULTS: The distraction index in group I (ISKD®) was 0.99 mm/day (range 0.55-1.67) and in the group II (Fitbone®) 0.55 mm/day (range 0.14-0.92) (p value = 0.001). The mean weight-bearing index differed between group I and group II from 32.0 day/cm (range 16.4-64.0) to 51.6 day/cm (25.8-95.0) (p value = 0.001). There were 17 recorded incidents in group I and 19 in group II during lengthening. CONCLUSION: Specific technical handicaps of the two systems, such as the so-called runaway of the ISKD® and backtracking of the Fitbone® nails seem to result in different distraction index and weight-bearing index. Further comparative studies might induce technical progress in intramedullary limb lengthening. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Thaller PH, Frankenberg F, Degen N, et al. Complications and Effectiveness of Intramedullary Limb Lengthening: A Matched Pair Analysis of Two Different Lengthening Nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2020;15(1):7-12.

Tibial and femoral osteotomies in varus deformities - radiological and clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND: Varus deformities of the knee are frequently corrected by osteotomies, which should be performed at the level of origin. But in contrast to high tibial osteotomies (HTO), little data exists for distal femoral osteotomies (DFO). This study evaluates radiological and clinical outcomes after valgisation osteotomies in the proximal tibia and distal femur. METHODS: We used an observational cohort study design and prospectively performed preoperative long standing radiographs (LSR), lateral x-rays and clinical questionnaires (SF-36, Lysholm score, VAS). Postoperative LSR and lateral x-rays were obtained on average 18 months postoperative and postoperative clinical questionnaires at final visit (mean follow up 46 months). A subgroup analysis of the different surgical techniques (oHTO vs. cDFO) was performed, with regards to radiological and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Finally 28 osteotomies with medial tibial opening (oHTO) or lateral femoral closing (cDFO) wedge osteotomies in 25 consecutive patients (mean age 40 years) were identified. There were 17 tibal and 11 femoral procedures. All osteotomies were performed at the origin of deformity, which was of different etiology. The average deviation of the final HKA compared to the preoperative planning was 2.4° ± 0.4°. Overall, there was a significant improvement in all clinical scores (SF-36: 61.8 to 79.4, p < 0.001; Lysholm-score: 72.7 to 90.4, p < 0.001; VAS: 3 to 1, p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between surgical accuracy and outcome scores. CONCLUSION: Valgisation osteotomies lead to a significant improvement in all clinical scores with the demonstrated treatment protocol. An appreciable proportion of varus deformities are of femoral origin. Since cDFO provides comparable radiological and clinical results as oHTO, this is an important treatment option for varus deformities of femoral origin.

Bone Transport for Limb Reconstruction Following Severe Tibial Fractures.

A common treatment of tibial defects especially after infections is bone transport via external fixation. We compare complications and outcomes of 25 patients treated with a typical Ilizarov frame or a hybrid system for bone reconstruction of the tibia. Average follow up was 5.1 years. Particular interest was paid to the following criteria: injury type, comorbidities, development of osteitis and outcome of the different therapies. The reason for segmental resection was a second or third grade open tibia fractures in 24 cases and in one case an infection after plate osteosynthesis. Average age of the patients was 41 years (range 19 to 65 years) and average defect size 6.6 cm (range 3.0 to 13.4 cm). After a mean time of 113 days 23 tibial defects were reconstructed, so we calculated an average healing index of 44.2 days/cm. Two patients with major comorbidities needed a below knee amputation. The presence of osteitis led to a more complicated course of therapy. In the follow up patients with an Ilizarov frame had better results than patients with hybrid systems. Bone transport using external fixation is suitable for larger defect reconstruction. With significant comorbidities, however, a primary amputation or other methods must be considered.