Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 109, Issue 6, pp 334–340 | Cite as

Limb lengthening and three-dimensional deformity corrections

A retrospective clinical study
  • K. Korzinek
  • S. Tepic
  • S. M. Perren
Original Articles

Summary

Different methods of limb lengthening as used at the Orthopedic Surgery Clinic of the Medical School, University of Zagreb, are compared. The results of operations performed between 1979 and 1989 on 111 patients are presented. These patients were subjected to surgery aimed at length equalization of limbs and/or correction of three-dimensional deformities. Lengthening was performed in 104 patients at one level, and in 7 patients at two levels of the same limb for a total of 118 procedures. In order to compare limb lengthening techniques the patients were divided into four groups: group I, original Wagner technique (45 patients); group II, Wagner technique using corticotomy (33 patients); group III, original Ilizarov technique (35 patients); group IV, continuous lengthening (2 patients). The evaluation covered radiological aspects of regenerated bone, complications and basic lengthening parameters. The results indicate that corticotomy has considerable advantages over osteotomy, provided bone circulation is maintained. These advantages manifest themselves in a reduced number of operations, lower incidence of infection and improved bone regeneration. It is preferable to perform corticotomy at the metaphysis site because of its optimum blood supply and its higher potential for osteogenesis. With corticotomy performed at the diaphysis site, satisfactory results were observed in only one-third of the cases.

Keywords

Medical School Blood Supply Satisfactory Result Bone Regeneration Considerable Advantage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson WV (1952) Leg lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 34:150Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aronson J, Good B, Stevart CH, Harrison B, Harp J (1990) Preliminary studies of mineralization during distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop 250:43Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbarosa V (1989) Master's thesis, University of ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brutscher R, Rüter A, Perren SM (1989) Die Behandlung ausgedehnter Defekte an langen Röhrenknochen durch Segmentverschiebung. Habilitationsschrift, Universität MünchenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Codivilla A (1905) On means of lengthening in the lower limbs, the muscles and tissues which are shortened through deformity. Am J Orthop Surg 2:353Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman SS, Noonan TD (1967) Andersons method of tibial lengthening by percutaneous osteotomy and gradual distraction. J Bone Joint Surg 49:236Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delloye C, Coutelier L (1990) Bone regenerate formation in cortical bone during distraction lengthening. Clin Orthop 250:34Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleming B, Paley D, Kristianser D, Pope M (1989) A biomechanical analysis of the Ilizarov external fixator. Clin Orthop 241:95Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodship AE, Kenwright J (1985) The influence of induced micro-motion upon the healing of experimental tibia fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 67:650Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross RH (1971) An evaluation of tibial lengthening procedures. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 53:693Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ilizarov GA (1952) A method of uniting bones in fractures and an apparatus to implement this method. USSR Authorship Certificate 98471Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ilizarov GA (1968) General principles of transosteal compression and distraction osteosynthesis. In: Proceedings of scientific session of traumatology and orthopaedics, Leningrad, pp 35–39Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ilizarov GA (1989) The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissue: part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft tissue preservation. Clin Orthop 238:249Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilizarov GA (1989) The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissue: part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clin OrthopGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ilizarov GA (1990) Clinical application of the tension-stress effect for limb lengthening. Clin Orthop 250:8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kawamura B (1981) The principles and techniques of limb lengthening. Int Orthop 5:69Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korzinek K, Barbarosa V (1988) Importance of corticotomy for bone regeneration speed in limb lengthening. Abstracts of the Intl Congress of Orthopaedics Prague, p 137Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Korzinek K, Tepic S, Perren S (1990) New type of electrically driven external fixator for leg lengthening. Proceedings of the JUREMA Congress, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lavriceva GI, Mihailova LN (1985) Histogenesis of skeletogenetic tissue during bone regeneration under distraction. Bull Exp Biol Med 99:198Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paley D (1990) Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop 250:81Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paley D, Fleming B, Catagni M, Kristiansen T, Pope M (1990) Mechanical evaluation of external fixators used in limb lengthening. Clin Orthop 250:50Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Putti V (1934) Operative lengthening of the femur. Surg Gynecol Obstet 58:318Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner H (1978) Operative lengthening of the femur. Clin Orthop 136:125Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gasser B, Boman B, Wyder D, Schneider E (1990) Stiffness characteristics of the circular Ilizarov device as opposed to conventional external fixators. J Biomech Eng 112:15–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Korzinek
    • 1
  • S. Tepic
    • 2
  • S. M. Perren
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical SchoolUniversity of ZagrebYugoslavia
  2. 2.Laboratory for Experimental SurgerySwiss Research InstituteDavos-PlatzSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations