Matched-Pair Analysis: Large-Sized Defects in Surgery of Lower Limb Nonunions.
Masquelet technique
diamond concept
nonunion
nonunion therapy
segmental bone defect
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jun 2023
23 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
27
03
2023
revised:
15
06
2023
accepted:
19
06
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
14
7
2023
entrez:
14
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The treatment of large-sized bone defects remains a major challenge in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Although there are many treatment options, there is still no clear guidance on surgical management, and the influence of defect size on radiological and clinical outcome remains unclear due to the small number of affected patients. The aim of the present study was to determine the influence of defect size on the outcome of atrophic and infected nonunions of the tibia or the femur based on the diamond concept in order to provide recommendations for treatment guidance. All medical records, surgical reports, laboratory data and radiological images of patients treated surgically for atrophic or infected nonunions of the lower limbs (femur or tibia) between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020 were examined. Patients with proximal, diaphyseal or distal nonunions of the femur or tibia who were surgically treated at our institution according to the "diamond concept" and attended our standardised follow-up program were included in a database. Surgical treatment was performed as a one- or two-step procedure, depending on the type of nonunion. Patients with a segmental bone defect ≥5 cm were matched with patients suffering a bone defect <5 cm based on five established criteria. According to our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 70 patients with a bone defect ≥5 cm were suitable for analysis. Two groups were formed by matching: the study group (bone defect ≥5 cm; n = 39) and control group (bone defect <5 cm; n = 39). The study was approved by the local ethics committee (S-262/2017). The mean defect size was 7.13 cm in the study and 2.09 cm in the control group. The chi-square test showed equal consolidation rates between the groups (SG: 53.8%; CG: 66.7%). However, the Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test showed a significant difference regarding the mean duration until consolidation was achieved, with an average of 15.95 months in the study and 9.24 months in the control group (α = 0.05, Surprisingly, defect size does not seem to have a significant effect on the consolidation rate and should not be seen as a risk factor. However, for the treatment of large-sized nonunions, the follow-up period should be prolonged up to 24 months, due to the extended time until consolidation will be achieved. This period should also pass before a premature revision with new bone augmentation is performed. In addition, it should be kept in mind that as the number of previous surgeries and revisions increases, the prospects for consolidation decrease and a change in therapeutic approach may be required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The treatment of large-sized bone defects remains a major challenge in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Although there are many treatment options, there is still no clear guidance on surgical management, and the influence of defect size on radiological and clinical outcome remains unclear due to the small number of affected patients. The aim of the present study was to determine the influence of defect size on the outcome of atrophic and infected nonunions of the tibia or the femur based on the diamond concept in order to provide recommendations for treatment guidance.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
All medical records, surgical reports, laboratory data and radiological images of patients treated surgically for atrophic or infected nonunions of the lower limbs (femur or tibia) between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020 were examined. Patients with proximal, diaphyseal or distal nonunions of the femur or tibia who were surgically treated at our institution according to the "diamond concept" and attended our standardised follow-up program were included in a database. Surgical treatment was performed as a one- or two-step procedure, depending on the type of nonunion. Patients with a segmental bone defect ≥5 cm were matched with patients suffering a bone defect <5 cm based on five established criteria. According to our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 70 patients with a bone defect ≥5 cm were suitable for analysis. Two groups were formed by matching: the study group (bone defect ≥5 cm; n = 39) and control group (bone defect <5 cm; n = 39). The study was approved by the local ethics committee (S-262/2017).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean defect size was 7.13 cm in the study and 2.09 cm in the control group. The chi-square test showed equal consolidation rates between the groups (SG: 53.8%; CG: 66.7%). However, the Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test showed a significant difference regarding the mean duration until consolidation was achieved, with an average of 15.95 months in the study and 9.24 months in the control group (α = 0.05,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Surprisingly, defect size does not seem to have a significant effect on the consolidation rate and should not be seen as a risk factor. However, for the treatment of large-sized nonunions, the follow-up period should be prolonged up to 24 months, due to the extended time until consolidation will be achieved. This period should also pass before a premature revision with new bone augmentation is performed. In addition, it should be kept in mind that as the number of previous surgeries and revisions increases, the prospects for consolidation decrease and a change in therapeutic approach may be required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37445272
pii: jcm12134239
doi: 10.3390/jcm12134239
pmc: PMC10342412
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Injury. 2021 Oct;52(10):2935-2940
pubmed: 33514450
Injury. 2021 Apr;52(4):988-995
pubmed: 33386161
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Sep;438:221-32
pubmed: 16131895
Injury. 2021 Jun;52 Suppl 2:S3-S11
pubmed: 33221036
Chirurg. 2018 Jan;89(1):73-88
pubmed: 29143138
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Feb;98(1):97-102
pubmed: 22244249
Biomed Res Int. 2020 May 22;2020:5893642
pubmed: 32596336
Z Orthop Unfall. 2015 Dec;153(6):659-74; quiz 675-6
pubmed: 26670151
J Inflamm Res. 2021 Mar 22;14:995-1005
pubmed: 33790615
Injury. 2015 Oct;46 Suppl 4:S39-50
pubmed: 26542865
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 May;30(5):e158-63
pubmed: 27101166
Injury. 2014 Jun;45 Suppl 2:S3-7
pubmed: 24857025
Injury. 2011 Dec;42(12):1435-42
pubmed: 21665205
J Orthop. 2016 Nov 02;14(1):123-133
pubmed: 27843223
JBJS Rev. 2016 Jan 5;4(1):
pubmed: 27490008
Clin Interv Aging. 2020 Jul 21;15:1221-1230
pubmed: 32801671
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2000 Jun;45(3):346-53
pubmed: 10929461
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022 Feb 16;119(50):869-875
pubmed: 36352531
Injury. 2007 Sep;38 Suppl 4:S3-6
pubmed: 18224731
Bone Joint J. 2020 Dec;102-B(12):1723-1734
pubmed: 33249891
Int J Surg. 2015 Jun;18:184-90
pubmed: 25937154
Indian J Orthop. 2015 Nov-Dec;49(6):643-8
pubmed: 26806972
Trials. 2018 May 30;19(1):299
pubmed: 29843766
J Orthop Traumatol. 2019 Apr 16;20(1):22
pubmed: 30993461
J Orthop Res. 2006 Jul;24(7):1438-53
pubmed: 16732617
J Orthop Trauma. 1995 Jun;9(3):222-6
pubmed: 7623174
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018 Jan 04;14:59-67
pubmed: 29379296
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Oct;31 Suppl 5:S55-S59
pubmed: 28938394
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Nov;141(11):1825-1833
pubmed: 32734449
Acta Orthop. 2012 Dec;83(6):653-60
pubmed: 23140093
Int Orthop. 2014 Jun;38(6):1277-82
pubmed: 24562850
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Jun 24;101(25):e29292
pubmed: 35758359
Acta Orthop. 2017 Aug;88(4):434-439
pubmed: 28508682
J Clin Med. 2019 Aug 22;8(9):
pubmed: 31443475