Benjamin B, Ryan P, Chechelnitskaya Y, Bayam L, Syed T, Drampalos E. Intraosseous device for arthrodesis in foot and ankle surgery: Review of the literature and biomechanical properties. World J Orthop 2021; 12(12): 1036-1044 [PMID: 35036346 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.1036]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Efstathios Drampalos, MD, MSc, PhD, Surgeon, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Stirling Road, Larbert FK54WR, Scotland, United Kingdom. efstathios.drampalos2@nhs.scot
Research Domain of This Article
Orthopedics
Article-Type of This Article
Systematic Reviews
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Biju Benjamin, Paul Ryan, Yulia Chechelnitskaya, Turab Syed, Efstathios Drampalos, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Larbert FK54WR, Scotland, United Kingdom
Levent Bayam, Department of Orthopaedic, Sakarya University, Sakarya 54100, Turkey
Author contributions: Benjamin B, Ryan P, Chechelnitskaya Y and Syed T performed the preparation of manuscript; Ryan P performed the English language check; Bayam L and Drampalos E helped with collection of data and manuscript preparation.
Conflict-of-interest statement: We, the authors of this study declare that there is no financial conflicts of interest or other interests that may influence the manuscript. We have not received any funding for the work undertaken.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Efstathios Drampalos, MD, MSc, PhD, Surgeon, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Stirling Road, Larbert FK54WR, Scotland, United Kingdom. efstathios.drampalos2@nhs.scot
Received: March 18, 2021 Peer-review started: March 18, 2021 First decision: July 18, 2021 Revised: August 1, 2021 Accepted: November 28, 2021 Article in press: November 28, 2021 Published online: December 18, 2021 Processing time: 270 Days and 21.9 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
Numerous fixation devices have been described in literature for foot and ankle arthrodesis. Each of these devices have their own benefits and drawbacks
Research motivation
This review article looked into the use of an intraosseous device IOFIX. Since the entire construct of IOFIX is embedded in the bone, there is less risk of soft tissue irritation and prominence of metalwork.
Research objectives
Outcome scores, union rates, as well as complications associated with the use of IOFIX was looked into.
Research methods
Fully published studies with details of the use of intra osseous devices were included in the study. These were identified by a search through available English literature. Nine related publications were identified and analysed.
Research results
In comparison to plate/screw constructs there were fewer soft tissue complications and issues of metalwork prominence. It also provided adequate compression across the arthrodesis site.
Research conclusions
IOFIX appears to be safe and effective in achieving arthrodesis of the 1st metatarsophalangeal and talonavicular joints with early rehabilitation. However, cadaveric and biomechanical studies on the use in tarsometatarsal and ankle joint showed some concerns with decreased load to failure and cycles to failure.
Research perspectives
Further clinical trials are required. Prospective and comparative studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up could confirm the effectiveness and limitations of the method.
