Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1157–1164 | Cite as

Double-level bone transport for large post-traumatic tibial bone defects: a single centre experience of sixteen cases

  • Yanlong Zhang
  • Yong Wang
  • Jun Di
  • Aqin Peng
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with large post-traumatic tibial bone defects managed by double-level bone transport using the Ilizarov technique.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 16 patients of 39.1 years (range, 16.0–65.0 years). The bone defects averaged 10.9 ± 3.8 cm (range: 6.0 cm–20.0 cm) after radical resection and were managed by double-level bone transport. Bone and functional results were evaluated according to the ASAMI criteria.

Results

The mean duration of follow-up after frame removal was 29.5 ± 1.8 months (range, 12.0–36.0 months). All patients achieved complete union in both the regenerates and the docking site and eradication of infection. The mean bone transport time was 55.6 ± 23.7 days (range, 30.0–125.0 days). The mean external fixation time was 12.0 ± 3.9 months (range, 5.0–18.0 months), and the mean external fixation index was 1.1 ± 0.3 months/cm (rang, 0.8–2.0 months/cm). The bone results were excellent in ten patients and poor in six patients. The functional results were excellent in 12 patients and good in four patients.

Conclusion

Double-level bone transport is a safe, reliable, and successful method for large post-traumatic tibial bone defects. Furthermore, this technique can reduce bone transport time, time in frame, and total treatment time in one stage.

Keywords

Bone transport Bone defects External fixation Ilizarov technique Tibia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has received funding from Science and Technology Plan Program of Hebei Province (grant number 14277745D).

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sala F, Thabet AM, Castelli F, Miller AN, Capitani D, Lovisetti G, Talamonti T, Singh S (2011) Bone transport for postinfectious segmental tibial bone defects with a combined ilizarov/taylor spatial frame technique. J Orthop Trauma 25(3):162–168.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181e5e160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maini L, Chadha M, Vishwanath J, Kapoor S, Mehtani A, Dhaon BK (2000) The Ilizarov method in infected nonunion of fractures. Injury 31(7):509–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paley D, Maar DC (2000) Ilizarov bone transport treatment for tibial defects. J Orthop Trauma 14(2):76–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robert Rozbruch S, Weitzman AM, Tracey Watson J, Freudigman P, Katz HV, Ilizarov S (2006) Simultaneous treatment of tibial bone and soft-tissue defects with the Ilizarov method. J Orthop Trauma 20(3):197–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borzunov DY, Chevardin AV (2013) Ilizarov non-free bone plasty for extensive tibial defects. Int Orthop 37(4):709–714.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1799-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borzunov DY (2012) Long bone reconstruction using multilevel lengthening of bone defect fragments. Int Orthop 36(8):1695–1700.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1562-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gustilo RB, Anderson JT (2002) JSBS classics. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones. Retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(4):682Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forsberg JA, Potter BK, Cierny G 3rd, Webb L (2011) Diagnosis and management of chronic infection. J Am Acad Orthopaed Surg 19(Suppl 1):S8–S19Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischgrund J, Paley D, Suter C (1994) Variables affecting time to bone healing during limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 301:31–37Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dendrinos GK, Kontos S, Lyritsis E (1995) Use of the Ilizarov technique for treatment of non-union of the tibia associated with infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(6):835–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chaddha M, Gulati D, Singh AP, Singh AP, Maini L (2010) Management of massive posttraumatic bone defects in the lower limb with the Ilizarov technique. Acta Orthop Belg 76(6):811–820PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dahl MT, Gulli B, Berg T (1994) Complications of limb lengthening. A learning curve. Clin Orthop Relat Res (301):10–18Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esterhai JL Jr, Sennett B, Gelb H, Heppenstall RB, Brighton CT, Osterman AL, LaRossa D, Gelman H, Goldstein G (1990) Treatment of chronic osteomyelitis complicating nonunion and segmental defects of the tibia with open cancellous bone graft, posterolateral bone graft, and soft-tissue transfer. J Trauma 30(1):49–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan MZ, Downing ND, Henry AP (1996) Tibial reconstruction by ipsilateral vascularized fibular transfer. Injury 27(9):651–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Masquelet AC, Fitoussi F, Begue T, Muller GP (2000) Reconstruction of the long bones by the induced membrane and spongy autograft. Annales de chirurgie plastique et esthetique 45(3):346–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Minami A, Kasashima T, Iwasaki N, Kato H, Kaneda K (2000) Vascularised fibular grafts. An experience of 102 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(7):1022–1025Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    El-Alfy B, El-Mowafi H, El-Moghazy N (2010) Distraction osteogenesis in management of composite bone and soft tissue defects. Int Orthop 34(1):115–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0574-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liodakis E, Kenawey M, Krettek C, Wiebking U, Hankemeier S (2011) Comparison of 39 post-traumatic tibia bone transports performed with and without the use of an intramedullary rod: the long-term outcomes. Int Orthop 35(9):1397–1402.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1094-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin P, Zhang L, Li T, Zhang L, Wang G, Li J, Liu J, Zhou J, Zhang Q, Tang P (2015) Infected nonunion of tibia and femur treated by bone transport. J Orthop Surg Res 10:49.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0189-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paley D, Catagni MA, Argnani F, Villa A, Benedetti GB, Cattaneo R (1989) Ilizarov treatment of tibial nonunions with bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 241:146–165Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lovisetti G, Sala F, Miller AN, Thabet AM, Zottola V, Capitani D (2012) Clinical reliability of closed techniques and comparison with open strategies to achieve union at the docking site. Int Orthop 36(4):817–825.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1260-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giotakis N, Narayan B, Nayagam S (2007) Distraction osteogenesis and nonunion of the docking site: is there an ideal treatment option? Injury 38(Suppl 1):S100–S107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryThe Third Hospital of Hebei Medical UniversityShijiazhuangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei ProvinceShijiazhuangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations