TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes following treatment of complex tibial fractures with circular external fixation
T2 - Comparison between the taylor spatial frame and truelok hex
AU - Naude, Jaco
AU - Manjra, Muhammad
AU - Birkholtz, Franz F.
AU - Barnard, Annette Christy
AU - Glatt, Vaida
AU - Tetsworth, Kevin
AU - Hohmann, Erik
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s). 2019.
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of complex tibia fractures treated with two differenhexapod 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 analyzed using the χ2 test. Continuous variables (FFI, functional tests, and radiographic outcomes) were analyzed 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 radiographioutcomes. Either fixator can be used for the treatment of complex tibial fractures, anticipating good and excellent clinical outcomes iapproximately 80% patients.
AB - Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of complex tibia fractures treated with two differenhexapod 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 analyzed using the χ2 test. Continuous variables (FFI, functional tests, and radiographic outcomes) were analyzed 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 radiographioutcomes. Either fixator can be used for the treatment of complex tibial fractures, anticipating good and excellent clinical outcomes iapproximately 80% patients.
KW - Circular external fixation
KW - Complex tibial fractures
KW - Taylor Spatial Frame
KW - TrueLok Hex
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088616101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088616101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1443
DO - 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1443
M3 - Article
C2 - 32742430
AN - SCOPUS:85088616101
SN - 1828-8936
VL - 14
SP - 147
EP - 152
JO - Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction
JF - Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction
IS - 3
ER -