The Management of Tibial Bone Defects: A Multicenter Experience of Hexapod and Ilizarov Frames.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 37535816.
- Also identified by DOI 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-23-00033 and PMC identifier 10402980.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
Bone defects may be managed with bone transport or acute shortening and lengthening using circular external fixation devices. We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study to compare the outcomes between the Ilizarov frames and hexapod frames for the management of bone defects. Patients treated for bone defects using either Ilizarov or hexapod frames were included for analysis in two specialist institutions. Primary outcomes were time to consolidation, bone healing index (BHI), and external fixator index (EFI). Radiographic parameters included the medial proximal tibial angle, lateral distal tibial angle, posterior proximal tibial angle, and anterior distal tibial angle. There were 137 hexapods and 90 Ilizarov frames in total. The mean time to follow-up was 3.7 years in the hexapod group and 4.0 years in the Ilizarov group. Hexapods had a significantly lower time to consolidation (253 days versus 449 days) (P < 0.0001) and BHI (59.1 days/cm versus 87.5 days/cm) (P < 0.0001). Hexapods had a significantly better EFI (72.3 days/cm versus 96.1 days/cm) (P = 0.0009). Hexapods may confer a significant advantage over Ilizarov frames in the management of bone defects. Time to consolidation, radiographic parameters, BHI, and EFI are all superior in hexapods.
Medical subject headings
- Ilizarov Technique
- Bone Lengthening
Anatomy
- tibia