Frame configuration for the management of complex tibial fractures is highly variable and is dependent not only on fracture pattern and soft tissue condition but also surgeon preference. The optimal number of rings to use when designing a frame remains uncertain. Traditionally, larger, stiffer constructs with multiple rings per segment were thought to offer optimal conditions for bone healing, however, the concept of reverse dynamisation questions this approach. We compared clinical outcomes in 302 consecutive patients with tibial fractures treated in our unit with either a two-ring circular frame or a three-or-more-ring (3+) frame. The primary outcome measure was time spent in frame. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of malunion and the need for further surgical procedures to achieve bone union. The groups were evenly matched for age, co-morbidities, energy of injury mechanism, fracture classification, post-treatment alignment and presence of an open fracture.Introduction
Materials & Methods
The timing of when to remove a circular frame is crucial; early removal results in refracture or deformity, while late removal increases the patient morbidity and delay in return to work. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a staged reloading protocol. We report the incidence of mechanical failure following both single-stage and two stage reloading protocols and analyze the associated risk factors. We identified consecutive patients from our departmental database. Both trauma and elective cases were included, of all ages, frame types, and pathologies who underwent circular frame treatment. Our protocol is either a single-stage or two-stage process implemented by defunctioning the frame, in order to progressively increase the weightbearing load through the bone, and promote full loading prior to frame removal. Before progression, through the process we monitor patients for any increase in pain and assess radiographs for deformity or refracture.Aims
Methods
