Standard fixation for intra-articular distal humerus fracture is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). However, high energy fractures of the distal humerus are often accompanied with soft tissue injuries and or vascular injuries which limits the use of internal fixation. In our report, we describe a highly complex distal humerus fracture that showed promising healing via a ring external fixator.

A 26-year-old man sustained a Gustillo Anderson Grade IIIB intra-articular distal humerus fracture of the non-dominant limb with bone loss at the lateral column. The injury was managed with aggressive wound debridement and cross elbow stabilization via a hinged ring external fixator. Post operative wound managed with foam dressing. Post-operatively, early controlled mobilization of elbow commenced. Fracture union achieved by 9 weeks and frame removed once fracture united. No surgical site infection or non-union observed throughout follow up. At 2 years follow up, flexion - extension of elbow is 20°- 100°, forearm supination 65°, forearm pronation 60° with no significant valgus or varus deformity.

The extent of normal anatomic restoration in elbow fracture fixation determines the quality of elbow function with most common complication being elbow stiffness. Ring fixator is a non-invasive external device which provides firm stabilization of fracture while allowing for adequate soft tissue management. It provides continuous axial micro-movements in the frame which promotes callus formation while avoiding translation or angulation between the fragments. In appropriate frame design, they allow for early rehabilitation of joint where normal range of motion can be allowed in controlled manner immediately post-fixation.

Functional outcome of elbow fracture from ring external fixation is comparable to ORIF due to better rehabilitation and lower complications. Ring external fixator in our patient achieved acceptable functional outcome and fracture alignment meanwhile the fracture was not complicated with common complications seen in ORIF.

In conclusion, ring external fixator is as effective as ORIF in treating complex distal humeral fractures and should be considered for definitive fixation in such fractures.

We did a retrospective comparative analysis of twenty five patients treated with Ilizarov bone transport [IBT] and twenty one patients treated with vascularised fibular graft [VFG] from 1994 to 2003 in one institution, for post traumatic tibial bone defects of more than six centimetres.

The aim of the study was to find out if there were any differences in achieving radiological end points, bone and functional score and return to work (final outcome), hospital stay and operating time (logistic factors) and complication rates. The mean defect size in the IBT group was 11.9 centimetres and in the VFG group 14.6 centimetres.

Twenty one and sixteen patients in the IBT and VFG group respectively achieved the radiological end point that is union of the defect and graft hypertrophy [p 0.5]. Nineteen patients in the IBT group and fifteen in the VFG group returned to productive work [p 0.72]. Bone and functional results were analyzed by Paley's evaluation system and there were no significant differences in the two groups of patients [bone result p 0.97 and functional result p 0.1]. The logistic factors were significantly less of IBT group [p < 0.05]. Two patients in the IBT group and one patient in the VFG group had amputation and one patient in VFG group died. Three cases in the VFG group had flap loss. Stress fracture of the graft occurred in eight patients in the VFG group [p 0.0007].

The final outcome was same in both groups. Hospital stay, operating time and refractures were significantly less in IBT group.

Retrospective comparative analysis of twenty five patients treated with Ilizarov bone transport [IBT] and twenty one patients treated with vascularised fibular graft [VFG] from 1994 to 2003 in one institution, for post traumatic tibial bone defects of more than six centimeters. The aim of the study was to find out if there were any differences in achieving radiological end points, bone and functional score and return to work (final outcome), hospital stay and operating time (logistic factors) and complication rates. The mean defect size in the IBT group was 11.9 centimeters and in the VFG group 14.6 centimeters.

Twenty one and sixteen patients in the IBT and VFG group respectively achieved the radiological end point that is union of the defect and graft hypertrophy [p 0.5]. Nineteen patients in the IBT group and fifteen in the VFG group returned to productive work [p 0.72]. Bone and functional results were analyzed by Paley’s evaluation system and there were no significant differences in the two groups of patients [bone result p 0.97 and functional result p 0.1]. The logistic factors were significantly less of IBT group [p < 0.05]. Two patients in the IBT group and one patient in the VFG group had amputation and one patient in VFG group died. Three cases in the VFG group had flap loss. Stress fracture of the graft occurred in eight patients in the VFG group [p 0.0007].

The final outcome was same in both groups. Hospital stay, operating time and refractures were significantly less in IBT group.