Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Orthop. Nov 18, 2021; 12(11): 909-919
Published online Nov 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i11.909
Published online Nov 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i11.909
Black et al[14] | |||||||
Comparison of FITBONE and circular fixation with respect to several treatment outcomes | |||||||
Outcome | FITBONE | Circular fixator | P value | ||||
Length achieved (cm) | 4.4 | 4.8 | 0.63 | ||||
Time to full weight bearing (mo) | 7.7 | 8.8 | 0.27 | ||||
Length of F/U (yr) | 3 | 3.6 | 0.6 | ||||
Classification of complications according to the authors | |||||||
Grade | Definition | Example | |||||
I | Minimal intervention required; goal still achieved | Pin site infection, mild joint contracture | |||||
II | Change to treatment plan, goal still achieved | Unplanned return to theatre, delayed union requiring bone graft. | |||||
IIIA | Fail to achieve plan, no new pathology | Premature union, inability to tolerate lengthening, fracture | |||||
IIIB | Fail to achieve goal, new pathology/permanent complications | Dislocations, deformity, nerve injury, deep infection | |||||
Comparison of FITBONE and circular fixation with respect to adverse events | |||||||
Complication | FITBONE | Circular fixator | P value | ||||
No. of complications (n = 15) | n (%) of lengthening sessions affected by complications | No. of complication (n = 14) | n (%) of lengthening sessions affected by complications | ||||
I | 7 | 5 (33) | 15 | 11 (79) | 0.03 | ||
II | 6 | 6 (40) | 8 | 6 (43) | 0.88 | ||
IIIA | 4 | 3 (20) | 4 | 4 (29) | 0.68 | ||
IIIB | 3 | 3 (20) | 6 | 5 (36) | 0.43 | ||
Any complication | 20 | 11 (73) | 33 | 14 (100) | 0.10 | ||
Szymczuk et al[13] | |||||||
Comparison of PRECICE and LRS fixation with respect to ROM | |||||||
ROM | PRECICE | LRS fixator | P value | ||||
Extension | Flexion | Extension | Flexion | ||||
Preoperative | 0.83 | 127.7 | 0.47 | 123.3 | 0.35 | ||
Post-distraction | 0.93 | 96.3 | -0.6 | 69.9 | 0.0007 | ||
Post-consolidation | -0.4 | 121.5 | 0.74 | 81.3 | < 0.0001 | ||
Final follow up | -0.4 | 119.6 | -0.7 | 120.2 | 0.9 | ||
Comparison of PRECICE and LRS fixation with respect to several treatment outcomes | |||||||
Outcome | PRECICE | LRS fixator | P value | ||||
Lengthening goal (cm) | 4.97 | 5.58 | 0.15 | ||||
Length achieved (cm) | 4.75 | 5.55 | 0.052 | ||||
Healing Index (d/cm) | 34.77 | 29.33 | 0.08 | ||||
Comparison of complication rates between PRECICE and LRS[22] | |||||||
Complication | PRECICE | LRS fixator | P value | ||||
Total events | Affected segment | Total events | Affected segments | ||||
Problems1, n (%) | 8 (25.8) | 7(23.3) | 32 (55) | 20 (62.5) | < 0.001 | ||
Obstacle1, n (%) | 19 (61) | 11 (36.7) | 20 (34.5) | 10 (31.3) | 0.66 | ||
Complications1, n (%) | 4 (12.9) | 4 (13.3) | 6 (10.3) | 5 (15.6) | 0.99 | ||
Total, n (%) | 31 | 18(60) | 58 | 26 (81.3) | 0.07 |
- Citation: Hafez M, Nicolaou N, Offiah AC, Giles S, Madan S, Fernandes JA. Femoral lengthening in young patients: An evidence-based comparison between motorized lengthening nails and external fixation. World J Orthop 2021; 12(11): 909-919
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v12/i11/909.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i11.909