Abstract
Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the time to union following acute shortening and subsequent lengthening versus Bone Transport using the Ilizarov external fixator.
Methods Eighteen patients with tibial non-unions (age range 26 to 63 years) were recruited between March 1995 and September 2001. Three subgroups of six patients each, were formed. Group 1 underwent Acute Shortening and subsequent Lengthening, whereas Group 2 underwent Bone Transport. Group 3 patients had defects < 1 cms but were still high energy injuries, therefore underwent application of a frame. This group was used as a comparison group. A proximal corticotomy was used for distraction osteogenesis. Bone grafting at the fracture or regenerate site was used if required to aid healing. All patients were followed-up to union. All three groups were similar for age, pre-injury health status including cigarette smoking. Ten infected non-unions were present. Most patients had at least two conventional operative interventions prior to referral to us for Ilizarov surgery. The mean bone resection in the Acute Shortening group (Group 1) was 4.6 cms and in the Bone Transport group (Group 2) was 5.9 cms. Patients in Group 2 had more procedures done before union was achieved. This included adjustment of frame/ reinsertion of wires to align transport segment for optimal docking and bone grafting at the docking/regenerate site. Four patients in Group 2 required bone grafting at the docking site compared to none in Group 1.
Results Eradication of infection and union was achieved in all patients with average time in frame being 12.1 months in the Acute Shortening group, 17.2 months in the Bone Transport group and 8.0 months in the Frame stabilisation group. Using Paley’s bone result evaluation system, an excellent result was achieved in all patients of all groups. However, patients in the Acute Shortening group had a shorter time to union and needed fewer procedures.
Conclusions We recommended that where feasible, acute shortening and lengthening is preferable to bone transport due to shorter union time and fewer procedures undertaken to achieve union. If this is not possible due to large defects, then a combination of acute shortening with transport to bridge the gap should be considered.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Jerzy Sikorski. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Australian Orthopaedic Association, Ground Floor, William Bland Centre, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia.
None of the authors have received any payment or consideration from any source for the conduct of this study.
