We compared the complications and outcome of tibial lengthening using the Ilizarov method with and without the use of a supplementary intramedullary nail. In a retrospective case-matched series assembled from 176 patients with tibial lengthening, we matched 52 patients (26 pairs, group A with nail and group B without) according to the following criteria in order of importance: 1) difference in amount of lengthening (± 2 cm); 2) percentage difference in lengthening (± 5%); 3) difference in patient’s age (± seven years); 4) aetiology of the shortening, and 5) level of difficulty in obtaining the correction. The outcome was evaluated using the external fixator index, the healing index and an outcome score according to the criteria of Paley. It was found that some complications were specific to group A or B respectively, but others were common to both groups.

The outcome was generally better in lengthenings with a nail, although there was a higher incidence of rectifiable equinus deformity in these patients.

We performed two independent, randomised, controlled trials in order to assess the potential benefits of immediate weight-bearing mobilisation after rupture of the tendo Achillis. The first trial, on operatively-treated patients showed an improved functional outcome for patients mobilised fully weight-bearing after surgical repair. Two cases of re-rupture in the treatment group suggested that careful patient selection is required as patients need to follow a structured rehabilitation regimen. The second trial, on conservatively-treated patients, provided no evidence of a functional benefit from immediate weight-bearing mobilisation. However, the practical advantages of immediate weight-bearing did not predispose the patients to a higher complication rate. In particular, there was no evidence of tendon lengthening or a higher re-rupture rate. We would advocate immediate weight-bearing mobilisation for the rehabilitation of all patients with rupture of the tendo Achillis.