Background: External fixation improves open fracture management in emerging countries. However, sophisticated models are often expensive and unavailable. We assessed the biomechanical properties of a low-cost external fixation system in comparison with the Hoffmann® 3 system, as a reference. Methods: Transversal, oblique, and comminuted fractures were created in the diaphysis of tibia sawbones. Six external fixators were tested in three modes of loading-axial compression, medio-lateral (ML) bending, and torsion-in order to determine construction stiffness. The fixator construct implies two uniplanar (UUEF1, UUEF2) depending the pin-rods fixation system and two biplanar (UBEF1, UBEF2) designs based on different bar to bar connections. The designed low-cost fixators were compared to a Hoffmann® 3 fixator single rod (H3-SR) and double rod (H3-DR). Twenty-seven constructs were stabilized with UUEF1, UUEF2, and H3-SR (nine constructs each). Nine constructs were stabilized with UBEF1, UBEF2, and H3-DR (three constructs each). Results: UUEF2 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR (p < 0.001) in axial compression for oblique fractures and UUEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR (p = 0.009) in ML bending for transversal fractures. Both UUEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-SR in axial compression and torsion (p < 0.05), and inferior to H3-SR in ML bending, for comminuted fractures. In the same fracture pattern, UBEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-DR (p = 0.001) in axial compression and torsion, while only UBEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-DR in ML bending (p = 0.013). Conclusions: The results demonstrated that the stiffness of the UUEF and UBEF device compares to the reference fixator and may be helpful in maintaining fracture reduction. Fatigue testing and clinical assessment must be conducted to ensure that the objective of bone healing is achievable with such low-cost devices.
Background: This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of locally-developed external xators (LDEF) as de nitive treatment for open tibia diaphyseal fractures (OTDF) in Ivory Coast. Methods: Gustilo I, II and IIIA OTDFs of patients admitted within 24 hours of injury were prospectively included and treated with a locally-developed external xator. The rates of union, mal-union, septic complications, as well as the functional results were assessed, in addition to the LDEF construct's integrity. Predictive factors of failure or poor results were assessed.Results: Overall, 40 OTDF patients were admitted within 24 hours of injury. Gustilo I, II and IIIA fractures were observed in three, 13, and 24 patients, respectively. Uneventful fracture healing was obtained in 29 cases, with an average union time of 8.47 months. Mal-union and non-union were registered in three and four cases, respectively. Pin-track infection (PTI) was observed in 13 cases, and deep infection in seven. Infection resolved in all patients except four, who developed chronic osteomyelitis. None of the nonunions were associated with an infection. The overall functional result was satisfactory in 32 patients.PTI was the only predictive factor for chronic infection. Biplanar frames, when compared to monoplanar constructs, were associated with a signi cantly improved functional outcome.
Conclusion:In comparison with the results obtained in the same environment without a locally-developed external xator, the provision of such a device improved signi cantly the OTDF management, as it provided better stability and superior fracture healing rates. PTI remains an essential problem but with, hopefully, limited negative consequences. Trial registration: This study protocol was registered in Pan African Clinical Trial Registry under N°PACTR202009854874448. Date of registration 28 September 2020 'retrospectively registered'.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.