Segmental transports for posttraumatic lower extremity bone defects: are femoral bone transports safer than tibial?
- 189 Downloads
The long-term outcomes following femoral and tibial segment transports are not well documented. Purpose of the study is to compare the complication rates and life quality scores of femoral and tibial transports in order to find what are the complication rates of femoral and tibial monorail bone transports and if they are different?
We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 8 femoral and 14 tibial consecutive segment transports performed with the monorail technique between 2001 and 2008 in our institution. Mean follow-up was 5.1 ± 2.1 years with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Aetiology of the defects was posttraumatic in all cases. Four femoral (50%) and nine tibial (64%) fractures were open. The Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey was used to compare the life quality after femoral and tibial bone transports. The Mann–Whiney U test, Fisher exact test, and the Student’s two tailed t-test were used for statistical analysis. P ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
The tibial transport was associated with higher rates of severe complications and additional procedures (1.5 ± 0.9 vs. 3.4 ± 2.7, p = 0.048). Three patients of the tibial group were amputated because of recurrent infections and one developed a complete regenerate insufficiency that was treated with partial diaphyseal tibial replacement. Contrary to that none of patients of the femoral group developed a complete regenerate insufficiency or was amputated.
Tibial bone transports have a higher rate of complete and incomplete regenerate insufficiency and can more often end in an amputation. The authors suggest systematic weekly controls of the CRP value and of the callus formation in patients with posttraumatic tibia bone transports. Further comparative studies comparing the results of bone transports with and without intramedullary implants are necessary.
KeywordsBone transport Monorail technique Femoral and tibial complications
Conflict of interest statement
There was no financial support for this study. None of the authors have received or will receive benefits for professional or personal use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. Each author certifies that he has no commercial associations (e.g, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
- 2.Dahl MT, Gulli B, Berg T (1994) Complications of limb lengthening. A learning curve. Clin Orthop Relat Res 301:10–18Google Scholar
- 6.Fink B, Krieger M, Strauss JM, Opheys C, Menkhaus S, Fischer J, Ruther W (1996) Osteoneogenesis and its influencing factors during treatment with the Ilizarov method. Clin Orthop Relat Res 323:261–272Google Scholar
- 7.Fischgrund J, Paley D, Suter C (1994) Variables affecting time to bone healing during limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 301:31–37Google Scholar
- 11.Kenawey M, Krettek C, Liodakis E, Meller R, Hankemeier S Insufficient Bone Regenerate after Intramedullary Femoral Lengthening: Risk Factors and Classification System. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 16.Paley D (1990) Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 250:81–104Google Scholar
- 19.Raschke MJ, Mann JW, Oedekoven G, Claudi BF (1992) Segmental transport after unreamed intramedullary nailing. Preliminary report of a “Monorail” system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 282:233–240Google Scholar