Lower limb lengthening: is there a difference in the lengthening index and infection rates of lengthening with external fixators, external fixators with intramedullary nails or intramedullary nailing alone? A systematic review of the literature
- 114 Downloads
A review of the current literature was undertaken to assess the lengthening index (LI) and infection rates found with different techniques of lower limb lengthening. We compared three methods of lengthening: external fixators, intramedullary nails and both methods used as a combined technique. Ten papers meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. The review found that by using either an ExFix with IMN or an IMN alone lengthening was achieved at twice the rate of ExFix alone. There were no infections recorded in the IMN group, 36.2% superficial and 2.5% deep in the ExFix group and 1.4% superficial and 5.5% deep in the ExFix + IMN group. When using LI and infection rates to compare techniques, the safest and most effective method of lower limb lengthening appears to be with IMN alone.
KeywordsIntramedullary Nail Deep Infection Prospective Case Series Varus Osteotomy Limb Lengthening
Conflict of interest statement
No funds were received in support of this study.
- 1.Codivilla A (1905) On the means of lengthening in the lower limbs, the muscles and tissues which are shortened through deformity. Am J Orthop Surg 2:353–369Google Scholar
- 5.Maffuli C, Lombari C, Matarazzo L, Nele U, Pagnotta G, Fixsen J (1996) A review of 240 patients undergoing distraction osteogenesis for congenital, post-traumatic or post-infective lower limb length discrepancy. J Am Coll Surg 182(5):394–402Google Scholar
- 8.Kocaoglu M, Eralp L, Kilicoglu O, Burc H, Cakmak M (2004) Complications encountered during lengthening over and intramedullary nail. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86-A(11):2406–2411Google Scholar
- 9.Paley D, Herzenberg J, Paremain G, Bhave A (1997) Femoral lengthening over an intramedullary nail. A matched-case comparison with Ilizarov femoral lengthening. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79:1464–1480Google Scholar