Abstract
Introduction
Non-union is agonising for patients, complex for surgeons and a costly burden to our healthcare service; as such, its management must be well defined. There is debate as to the requirements for the successful treatment of such patients, in particular, the need for additional biological therapies to ensure union. This study's primary aim was to determine if operative treatment alone was an effective treatment for the non-union of long bones in the upper and lower limbs compared to the pre-existing literature using biological therapies.
Materials and Methods
A single-centre retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data was performed. Inclusion was defined as patients 16 years or older with a radiologically confirmed non-union of the upper or lower limb long bones managed with surgical treatment alone between 2014–2019, with at least a 12 month follow up. Patients with bone defects or whose non-unions were treated with biological therapies were excluded from this study. The primary aim was assessed via the outcomes of union, time to union and RUST score.
Results
82 patients were included, 43 receiving percutaneous interventions and 39 receiving open interventions. Overall, a union rate of 97.56% was achieved with a mean time to union of 6.43 months. The mean RUST score increased from 6.09 at diagnosis to a final RUST score of 11.36 (p < 0.0001). Surgical factors showed that percutaneous interventions were most successful with a union rate of 100.00% with a mean time to union of 6.29 months. Augmentation surgery was associated with the shortest time to union of 4.47 months. Binary regression showed no statistically significant influence of patient factors. In 16 patients, complications were observed, including limb length discrepancy, ongoing pain and subsequent ankle problems.
Conclusions
These results show non-inferior outcomes using operative treatment alone in non-union management as compared to the pre-existing literature on using biological therapies. Percutaneous interventions showed the most successful results and patient factors seemed to have little influence on this method's success. The continued use of biological therapies as a first line treatment should be questioned.
