Fracture healing following high energy tibial trauma: Ilizarov versus Taylor Spatial Frame

Introduction: The optimal treatment of high energy tibial fractures remains controversial and a challenging orthopaedic problem. The role of external fi xators for all these tibial fractures has been shown to be crucial. Methods: A fi ve-year consecutive series was reviewed retrospectively, identifying two treatment groups: Ilizarov and Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF; Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, US). Fracture healing time was the primary outcome measure. Results: A total of 112 patients (85 Ilizarov, 37 TSF) were identifi ed for the review with a mean age of 45 years. This was higher in women (57 years) than in men (41 years). There was no signifi cant difference between frame types (p=0.83). The median healing time was 163 days in both groups. There was no signifi cant difference in healing time between smokers and non-smokers (180 vs 165 days respectively, p=0.07), open or closed fractures (p=0.13) or age and healing time (Spearman's r=0.12, p=0.18). There was no incidence of non-union or re-fracture following frame removal in either group. Conclusions: Despite the assumption of the rigid construct of the TSF, the median time to union was similar to that of the Ilizarov frame and the TSF therefore can play a signifi cant role in complex tibial fractures

Modern cemented Furlong hemiarthroplasty: Are dislocations rates better?

BACKGROUND: Dislocation following hip hemiarthroplasty is a major complication with increased mortality and morbidity. Data looking at dislocation following contemporary bipolar stems are lacking in literature. METHODS: Retrospective review of our prospective national hip fracture database over a two-year period. Group 1 comprised of consecutive patients receiving bipolar Furlong prosthesis (N222) while Group 2 was made up of a historical cohort (uncemented; N254). Clinical and radiological records were reviewed to determine dislocation rates, causes and associative factors of dislocations. Data were analysed using SPSS. RESULTS: Following 476 hemiarthroplasties performed during the study period, 12 (2.5%) dislocations were reported (eight in Group 1; four in Group 2). There was no significant difference in dislocation rates (3.6% vs 1.6%) between groups (p = 0.159). Subgroup analysis of Group 1 demonstrated a significant difference in dislocations with Furlong cemented (6%) as compared with Furlong uncemented (0%) hemiarthroplasties (p = 0.024). Following dislocation, death rates increased to 8.3% from 1.7% in both groups. CONCLUSION: There is a statistically significant increase in dislocation rate following use of cemented Furlong prosthesis when compared to similar uncemented prosthesis at the same treatment period. However, when compared to traditional uncemented prosthesis, there is no difference in dislocation rates