Advantages of the Ilizarov external fixation in the management of intra-articular fractures of the distal tibia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Treatment of distal tibial intra-articular fractures is challenging due to the difficulties in achieving anatomical reduction of the articular surface and the instability which may occur due to ligamentous and soft tissue injury. The purpose of this study is to present an algorithm in the application of external fixation in the management of intra-articular fractures of the distal tibia either from axial compression or from torsional forces.</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>Thirty two patients with intra-articular fractures of the distal tibia have been studied. Based on the mechanism of injury they were divided into two groups. Group I includes 17 fractures due to axial compression and group II 15 fractures due to torsional force. An Ilizarov external fixation was used in 15 patients (11 of group I and 4 of group II). In 17 cases (6 of group I and 11 of group II) a unilateral hinged external fixator was used. In 7 out of 17 fractures of group I an additional fixation of the fibula was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All fractures were healed. The mean time of removal of the external fixator was 11 weeks for group I and 10 weeks for group II. In group I, 5 patients had radiological osteoarthritic lesions (grade III and IV) but only 2 were symptomatic. Delayed union occurred in 3 patients of group I with fixed fibula. Other complications included one patient of group II with subluxation of the ankle joint after removal of the hinged external fixator, in 2 patients reduction found to be insufficient during the postoperative follow up and were revised and 6 patients had a residual pain. The range of ankle joint motion was larger in group II.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Intra-articular fractures of the distal tibia due to axial compression are usually complicated with cartilaginous problems and are requiring anatomical reduction of the articular surface. Fractures due to torsional forces are complicated with ankle instability and reduction should be augmented with ligament repair, in order to restore normal movement of talus against the mortise. Both Ilizarov and hinged external fixators are unable to restore ligamentous stability. External fixation is recommended only for fractures of the ankle joint caused by axial compression because it is biomechanically superior and has a lower complication rate.</p

Treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures by ligamentotaxis: current concepts’ review

Introduction: A large variety of therapeutic modalities for calcaneal fractures have been described in the literature. No single treatment modality for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures has proven superior over the other. This review describes and compares the different percutaneous distractional approaches for intra-articular calcaneal fractures. The history, technique, anatomical and fracture considerations, limitations and the results of different distractional approaches reported in the literature are reviewed. Method: Literature review on different percutaneous distractional approaches for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Results: Eight studies in which application of a distraction technique was used for the treatment of calcaneal fractures were identified. Because of the use of different classification, techniques, and outcome scoring systems, a meta-analysis was not possible. A literature review reveals overall fair to poor result in 10-29% of patients. Ten up to 26% of patients are unable to return to work after percutaneous treatment of their fracture. A secondary arthrodesis has to be performed in 2-15% of the cases. Infectious complications occur in 2-15%. Some loss of reduction is reported in 4-67%. Conclusion: Percutaneous distractional reduction and fixation appears to be a safe technique with overall good results and an acceptable complication rate, compared with other treatment modalities for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. A meta-analysis, based on Cochrane Library criteria is not possible, because of a lack of level 1 and 2 trials on this subject

To retain or remove the syndesmotic screw: a review of literature

Introduction: Syndesmotic positioning screws are frequently placed in unstable ankle fractures. Many facets of adequate placement techniques have been the subject of various studies. Whether or not the syndesmosis screw should be removed prior to weight-bearing is still debated. In this study, the recent literature is reviewed concerning the need for removal of the syndesmotic screw. Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, Pubmed Medline and EMbase from January 2000 to October 2010. Results: A total of seven studies were identified in the literature. Most studies found no difference in outcome between retained or removed screws. Patients with screws that were broken, or showed loosening, had similar or improved outcome compared to patients with removed screws. Removal of the syndesmotic screws, when deemed necessary, is usually not performed before 8-12 weeks. Conclusion: There is paucity in randomized controlled trials on the absolute need for removal of the syndesmotic screw. However, current literature suggests that it might be reserved for intact screws that cause hardware irritation or reduced range of motion after 4-6 months

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial on risk adapted damage control orthopedic surgery of femur shaft fractures in multiple trauma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fractures of the long bones and femur fractures in particular are common in multiple trauma patients, but the optimal management of femur fractures in these patients is not yet resolved. Although there is a trend towards the concept of "Damage Control Orthopedics" (DCO) in the management of multiple trauma patients with long bone fractures as reflected by a significant increase in primary external fixation of femur fractures, current literature is insufficient. Thus, in the era of "evidence-based medicine", there is the need for a more specific, clarifying trial.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The trial is designed as a randomized controlled open-label multicenter study. Multiple trauma patients with femur shaft fractures and a calculated probability of death between 20 and 60% will be randomized to either temporary fracture fixation with fixateur externe and defined secondary definitive treatment (DCO) or primary reamed nailing (early total care). The primary objective is to reduce the extent of organ failure as measured by the maximum sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The Damage Control Study is the first to evaluate the risk adapted damage control orthopedic surgery concept of femur shaft fractures in multiple trauma patients in a randomized controlled design. The trial investigates the differences in clinical outcome of two currently accepted different ways of treating multiple trauma patients with femoral shaft fractures. This study will help to answer the question whether the "early total care" or the „damage control” concept is associated with better outcome.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10321620</p