Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1382 - 1388
1 Oct 2016
Laubscher M Mitchell C Timms A Goodier D Calder P

Aims

Patients undergoing femoral lengthening by external fixation tolerate treatment less well when compared to tibial lengthening. Lengthening of the femur with an intramedullary device may have advantages.

Patients and Methods

We reviewed all cases of simple femoral lengthening performed at our unit from 2009 to 2014. Cases of nonunions, concurrent deformities, congenital limb deficiencies and lengthening with an unstable hip were excluded, leaving 33 cases (in 22 patients; 11 patients had bilateral procedures) for review. Healing index, implant tolerance and complications were compared.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1673 - 1680
1 Dec 2013
Papakostidis C Bhandari M Giannoudis PV

We carried out a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the evidence regarding the clinical results of the Ilizarov method in the treatment of long bone defects of the lower limbs.

Only 37 reports (three non-randomised comparative studies, one prospective study and 33 case-series) met our inclusion criteria. Although several studies were unsatisfactory in terms of statistical heterogeneity, our analysis appears to show that the Ilizarov method of distraction osteogenesis significantly reduced the risk of deep infection in infected osseous lesions (risk ratio 0.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.20), p < 0.001). However, there was a rate of re-fracture of 5% (95% CI 3 to 7), with a rate of neurovascular complications of 2.2% (95% CI 0.3 to 4) and an amputation rate of 2.9% (95% CI 1.4 to 4.4).The data was generally not statistically heterogeneous. Where tibial defects were > 8 cm, the risk of re-fracture increased (odds ratio 3.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.5), p = 0.036).

The technique is demanding for patients, illustrated by the voluntary amputation rate of 1.6% (95% CI 0 to 3.1), which underlines the need for careful patient selection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1673–80.