No abstract

Aim The purpose of this study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of complex tibia fractures treated with two different hexapod fixators. Material and methods This is a retrospective comparative study of patients treated for complex tibial fractures between 2010 and 2015. Inclusion criteria was patients between 18 years and 60 years of age, who sustained a complex comminuted open or closed tibial fracture with or without bone loss, who had a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up, and who have been treated definitively using either Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) or TrueLok-Hexapod System (TL-HEX). The outcome measures were Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) score, foot function index (FFI), EQ5-D, four-step square test (FSST), and timed up and go (TUG) test. Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient demographic information. Categorical variables (ASAMI and EQ5D-5L) were analysed using the χ 2 test. Continuous variables (FFI, functional tests, and radiographic outcomes) were analysed with two-tailed Student’s t tests. Results In all, 24 patients were treated with the TL-HEX and 21 with the TSF. The mean time for external fixation was 219 ± 107 days (TL-HEX) and 222 ± 98 days (TSF). Union occurred in 92% (TL-HEX) and 100% (TSF). The mean follow-up was 777 ± 278 days (TL-HEX) and 1211 ± 388 days (TSF). Using the ASAMI scores, there were 17 excellent and 6 good results for the TL-HEX and 10 excellent and 11 good results for the TSF ( p = 0.33). The FFI was 30 ± 28.7 (TL-HEX) and 26.1+23.9 (TSF) ( p = 0.55). The EQ5D was 0.67 ± 0.3 (TL-HEX) and 0.73 ± 0.2 (TSF) ( p = 0.43). The mean TUG and FSST were 9.2 ± 3.2 and 10 ± 2.9 seconds (TL-HEX) and 8.4 ± 2.3 and 9.6 ± 3.1 seconds (TSF) ( p = 0.34 and 0.69). Conclusion The results of this study suggest that both hexapod external fixation devices have comparable clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes. Either fixator can be used for the treatment of complex tibial fractures, anticipating good and excellent clinical outcomes in approximately 80% patients. Level of evidence Therapeutic level III How to cite this article Naude J, Manjra M, Birkholtz FF, et al. Outcomes Following Treatment of Complex Tibial Fractures with Circular External Fixation: A Comparison between the Taylor Spatial Frame and TrueLok-Hex. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2019;14(3):142–147.

A bstract Aim and objective The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results following complex proximal, midshaft, and distal tibial fractures and investigate whether there are differences in outcomes between these locations. Materials and methods Patients between 18 years and 65 years of age and minimum follow-up of 12 months with complex tibial fractures treated with a circular ring fixator were included. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) functional and bone scores, Foot Function Index (FFI), Four Step Square Test (FSST), and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG). Quality of life was assessed by the EQ-5D score. Results A total of 45 patients were included: proximal fractures, n = 11; midshaft fractures, n = 17; and distal fractures, n = 17. ASAMI functional ( p = 0.8) and bone scores ( p = 0.3) were not different. Excellent and good bone scores were achieved in >90% in all groups. FFI was 30.9 + 24.7 in the proximal group, 33.9 + 27.7 in the midshaft group, and 28.8 + 26.9 in the distal group ( p = 0.8). TUG was 9.0 + 2.7 sec in the proximal group, 9.0+3.5 in the midshaft group, and 8.5+2.0 in the distal group ( p = 0.67). FSST was 10.7 + 2.5 sec in the proximal, 10.3 + 3.8 in the midshaft, and 8.9 + 1.8 in the distal fracture groups ( p = 0.5). EQ-5D index value was highest in the distal (0.72), lowest in the proximal (0.55), and 0.70 in the midshaft fracture groups ( p = 0.001). EQ-5D VAS was significantly different between the proximal (65) and midshaft (82.3) ( p = 0.001) and between the distal (75) and proximal (65) fracture groups ( p = 0.001). Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the functional outcomes between proximal, midshaft, and distal complex tibial fractures are comparable. Their ability to ambulate afterward is comparable to age-related normative data, but complex tasks are more difficult and better compared to the ambulating ability of a healthy population aged 65 to 80 years. Patients with proximal tibial fractures had significantly more disability by at least one functional level and/or one health dimension. How to cite this article Naude JJ, Manjra MA, Birkholtz F, et al. Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life Following Complex Tibial Fractures Treated with Circular External Fixation: A Comparison between Proximal, Midshaft, and Distal Tibial Fractures. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(1):32–40.

Open tibia fractures are associated with an increased risk of infection, delayed union, non-union and wound complications. Management is aimed at mitigating the risk of infection while optimising the biological and biomechanical environment to encourage soft tissue and bone healing. With ongoing clinical trials and research, our knowledge around best clinical practice continues to evolve. Multiple consensus documents and protocols have been formulated, yet some controversy exists around the ideal management for high risk grade III injuries. Early antibiotic therapy has become a cornerstone in the management of these injuries. However, some controversy remains around the type and duration of antibiotic therapy. Emergent debridement and lavage is a critical factor in treatment success. Intramedullary nailing is a viable fixation option for most open tibia fractures while circular external fixation has gained prominence in the management of high energy grade III injuries, especially in the presence of bone and soft tissue loss. The timing of the various treatment interventions continues to provoke debate and controversy. Considering the available literature, the local context needs to be considered. Inadequate access to theatre, shortage of staff, resources and expertise are frequently encountered. We aim to elucidate current literature with regard to the management of open tibia fractures guided in part by various consensus documents and protocols.