Explore the vast range of titles available.

Keywords: Supracondylar fracture, Supracondylar humerus fracture, Supracondylar humeral fracture, External fixator, External fixation, Slongo's external fixator, Slongo external fixator, Rehabilitation, Elbow function, Paediatric elbow trauma, Pediatric elbow trauma, Flynn criteria

This study aims to measure anatomical data of the capitate bone, develop an external fixator for treating late-stage osteonecrosis of lunate through Ilizarov technique, and evaluate its biomechanical performance. We selected eight wrist joint specimens to measure various parameters of the capitate bone, including its length, the distance from the junction of capitate head and body to the proximal end, as well as the width of its proximal head and distal body. Additionally, we measured these same indicators in 107 patients who had undergone wrist X-ray examination. Based on our measurements, we categorized the capitate bone into two groups and designed two types of capitate bone Ilizarov external fixator (CIEF) for it. Then, we compared it with the orthofix external fixator (OEF) through dynamic fatigue biomechanical experiments and pull-out resistance experiments. The results of the measurement revealed two categories of general patterns in the capitate bone. The first type maintains a consistent longitudinal axis between the proximal and distal ends. The second type is characterized by its proximal end being close to the radial side and its distal end being close to the ulnar side. In the dynamic tensile fatigue test, CIEF-A and CIEF-B had smaller maximum displacement values compared to the OEF (P < 0.05). In the anti-pull-out experiment, both CIEF-A and CIEF-B exhibited higher maximum pull-out force than the OEF (P < 0.05). CIFE is a treatment for advanced osteonecrosis of the lunate bone. It is specifically designed to align with the anatomical characteristics of the capitate bone, providing excellent biomechanical properties and a simple clinical procedure. However, additional clinical experiments are needed to confirm its effectiveness in the future.

Purpose A low-cost modular external fixator for the lower limb has been developed for global surgery use. The purpose of this study is to assess outcome measures in the first clinical use of the device. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted with patients recruited in two trauma hospitals. Initial clinical procedure data were collected, and patients were followed up every two weeks until 12 weeks or definitive fixation. Follow-up assessed infection, stability, and radiographic outcomes. In addition, patient-reported outcomes and surgeons’ feedback on device usability were collected by questionnaires. Results The external fixator was used on 17 patients. Ten were mono-lateral, five were joint spanning, and two were delta configuration. One patient had a pin site infection at 12-week follow-up. All were stable when tested mechanically and using radiographic assessment, and 53% were converted to definitive fixation. Conclusion The low-cost external fixator developed is appropriate for use in global surgery trauma centres with good clinical outcomes. Prospective trial registration number and date SLCTR/2021/025 (06 Sep 2021).

For the monitoring of bone regeneration processes, the instrumentation of the fixation is an increasingly common technique to indirectly measure the evolution of bone formation instead of ex vivo measurements or traditional in vivo techniques, such as X-ray or visual review. A versatile instrumented external fixator capable of adapting to multiple bone regeneration processes was designed, as well as a wireless acquisition system for the data collection. The design and implementation of the overall architecture of such a system is described in this work, including the hardware, firmware, and mechanical components. The measurements are conditioned and subsequently sent to a PC via wireless communication to be in vivo displayed and analyzed using a developed real-time monitoring application. Moreover, a model for the in vivo estimation of the bone callus stiffness from collected data was defined. This model was validated in vitro using elastic springs, reporting promising results with respect to previous equipment, with average errors and uncertainties below 6.7% and 14.04%. The devices were also validated in vivo performing a bone lengthening treatment on a sheep metatarsus. The resulting system allowed the in vivo mechanical characterization of the bone callus during experimentation, providing a low-cost, simple, and highly reliable solution.

Background Timing the fixator removal is vital for a successful external fixation treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of axial load–share ratio in vivo as a supplemental decision support tool for the safe removal of an Ilizarov circular external fixator. Methods This prospective observational study consists of 83 patients undergoing tibial or femoral lengthening with Ilizarov circular external fixation in our institution, from January 2011 to October 2019. In group I (38 patients), the external fixator was removed based on the surgeon’s clinical experience and radiographs from January 2011 to June 2015. In group II (45 patients), from July 2015 to October 2019, the supplemental axial load–share (LS) ratio test was accomplished without the knowledge of the clinical results by another medical team. The test was performed by electronically measuring forces in the fixator rods and in a ground force plate. When the LS ratio < 10% was consistent with the conclusion (dense bone formation was achieved in the distraction zone) drawn from the corresponding routine radiographs by the treating surgeon, the external fixator was removed. Results There was no statistical significance in demographic data between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). In group I, 4 of the 38 patients suffered refracture (the refracture rate was 10.5%) after fixator removal, and bone union was finally achieved with further intervention by intramedullary nail. In group II, 36 patients terminated the external fixation after the first mechanical test, and another 9 patients terminated the external fixation at the subsequent test. None of the 45 patients in group II suffered refracture (the refracture rate was 0%). There was statistical significance in the refracture rate between the two groups ( P  < 0.05). Conclusions Adequate assessment of bone regenerate is crucial before removing an external fixator to prevent deformation or refracture. The axial load–share ratio in vivo is a practically quantitative method to supplement radiography and clinical experience for the assessment of regenerate healing, and the axial load–share ratio dropped below 10% is a safe limit for the Ilizarov circular external fixator removal.

Purpose To present the technique of correction of multiplanar deformities around the knee in children and adolescents using the monolateral external fixator. Also, to evaluate the results of the technique regarding radiological correction, time to union, and possible complications. Methods A total of 29 patients (47 limbs) were prospectively included in the study (14 males and 15 females). Their median age was 13 years (range, 7–17). All patients had at least a 2-plane deformity around the knee which was corrected using a monolateral external fixator. The primary outcome measure was deformity correction (correction of mechanical axis deviation (MAD) in both the coronal and sagittal planes with correction of rotational deformities). The secondary outcome measures included bony union, radiographic, and functional results (assessed by using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) score). Results The median pre-operative MAD improved from 6.3 to 0.4 cm post-operatively. According to the ASAMI scoring system, the radiographic scoring was excellent in all cases (100%), and the functional scoring was excellent in 22 cases (89.7%) and good in three cases (10.3%). Conclusion The simple monolateral fixator can be an effective tool for multiplanar correction of complex deformities around the knee without limb length discrepancy.

Background Open distal tibial fractures pose significant challenges regarding treatment options and patient outcomes. This retrospective single-centre study aimed to compare the stability, clinical outcomes, complications, and financial implications of two surgical interventions, namely the external locking plate and the combined frame external fixator, to manage open distal tibial fractures. Methods Forty-four patients with distal open tibial (metaphyseal extraarticular) fractures treated between 2020 and 2022 were selected and formed into two main groups, Group A and Group B. Group A (19 patients) are patients that underwent treatment using the external locking plate technique, while Group B (25 patients) received the combined frame external fixator approach. Age, gender, inpatient stay, re-operation rates, complications, functional recovery (measured by the Johner-Wrush score), pain ratings (measured by the Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]), and cost analyses were evaluated for each group. Statistical analyses using SPSS were conducted to compare the outcomes between the two groups. Results The research found significant variations in clinical outcomes, complications, and cost consequences between Group A and Group B. Group A had fewer hospitalisation periods (23.687.74) than Group B (33.5619.47). Re-operation rates were also considerably lower in Group A (26.3%) than in Group B (48%), owing to a greater prevalence of pin-tract infections and subsequent pin loosening in the combination frame external fixator group. The estimated cost of both techniques was recorded and analysed with the locking average of 26,619.69 ± 9,602.352 and the combined frame average of 39,095.64 ± 20,070.077. Conclusion This study suggests that although the two approaches effectively manage open distal tibia fractures, the locking compression plate approach (Group A) has an advantage in treating open distal tibia fractures. Shorter hospitalisation times, reduced re-operation rates, and fewer complications will benefit patients, healthcare systems, and budget allocation. Group A's functional recovery results demonstrate the locking plate technique's ability to improve recovery and patient quality of life. According to the cost analysis, the locking plate technique's economic viability and cost-effectiveness may optimise healthcare resources for open distal tibia fractures. These findings might improve patient outcomes and inform evidence-based orthopaedic surgery.

Background External fixation, which can preserve the biomechanical microenvironment of fracture healing, plays an important role in managing the high-energy fractures with poor surrounding soft tissues. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences of clinical outcomes, if any, between hexapod external fixator and monolateral external fixator in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures. Methods A total of 53 patients with high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures and definitively treated by the hexapod external fixator (HEF) or monolateral external fixator (MEF) were retrospectively collected and analyzed, from March 2015 to June 2019. There were 31 patients in the HEF treatment, and the other 22 patients were managed by the MEF. The demographic data, surgical duration, external fixation time, final radiological results, complications, and clinical outcomes were documented and analyzed. Difficulties that occurred during the treatment were classified according to Paley. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov criteria (ASAMI) at the last clinical visit. Results The mean surgical duration in the HEF group (62.4 ± 8.3 min) was shorter than that in the MEF group (91.4 ± 6.9 min) ( P  < 0.05). All patients acquired complete bone union finally. Patients in the HEF group (24.2 ± 3.1 weeks) underwent a shorter average external fixation time than that in the MEF group (26.3 ± 3.8 weeks) ( P  < 0.05). Satisfactory alignment was achieved in all patients without the need for remanipulation. The residual sagittal plane deformities in the HEF group were all less than that in the MEF group ( P  < 0.05). The complication rate was 35.5% in the HEF group, while 45.5% in the MEF group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in ASAMI scores ( P  > 0.05). Conclusion There is no statistically significant difference in finally clinical outcomes between hexapod external fixator and monolateral external fixator in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures. The hexapod external fixation treatment is a superior effective method, including advantages of stable fixation, less surgical duration, postoperatively satisfactory fracture reduction, and fewer complications.

Background Temporary fixation with an external fixator is used for numerous indications in orthopedic trauma surgery. It is unclear whether primary wound healing or secondary open-wound healing after removal of the external fixator should be advocated for the pin site. This study compares primary wound closure with secondary wound healing for the pin site. The primary aim is to compare pin-site infection rates. The secondary aim is to compare time to wound healing and esthetic outcome. The hypothesis was that primary wound closure does not lead to more infections than secondary wound healing. Methods and design This is a prospective, randomized controlled, blinded, monocenter study based on a non-inferiority design. To obtain an equal patient population and groups, all pin-entry sites of the patients are treated alternately at the time of removal of the external fixator with primary wound closure and secondary wound healing. Patients are randomized according to whether the proximal pin-entry site is treated with wound closure or by secondary open-wound healing, from which the further sequence develops. The pre- and postoperative protocol is standardized for all pin-entry sites. A photo documentation of the pin-entry sites takes place 2 and 52 weeks postoperatively during the routine clinical follow-up visits. Further controls take place at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after pin removal. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of primary wound closure compared to secondary wound healing in terms of postoperative wound infections according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions. The secondary outcomes are time to complete wound healing (days) and esthetical outcome (subjective preference of patients and Vancouver Scar Scale score). Discussion This study aims to answer how to deal with the pin site after removal of the external fixator. To date, no routine and generally accepted protocol exists for the management of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. This prospective, randomized controlled, blinded monocenter trial should determine whether primary wound closure or secondary wound healing should be advocated after removal of the external fixator. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03842956 . Registered retrospectively on 13 February 2019.

Background The purpose of the study was to assess and compare the clinical efficacy of bone transport with either circular or unilateral external fixators over an intramedullary nail in the treatment of tibial bone defects caused by infection. Methods Between May 2010 and January 2019, clinical and radiographic data were collected and analyzed for patients with bone defects caused by infection. Thirteen patients underwent bone transport using a unilateral external fixator over an intramedullary nail (Group A), while 12 patients were treated with a circular external fixator over an intramedullary nail (Group B). The bone and functional outcomes of both groups were assessed and compared using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of the Ilizarov criteria, and postoperative complications were evaluated according to the Paley classification. Results A total of 25 patients were successfully treated with bone transport using external fixators over an intramedullary nail, with a mean follow-up time of 31.63 ± 5.88 months. There were no significant statistical differences in age, gender, previous surgery per patient, duration of infection, defect size, and follow-up time between Group A and Group B ( P  > 0.05). However, statistically significant differences were observed in operation time (187.13 ± 21.88 min vs. 255.76 ± 36.42 min, P  = 0.002), intraoperative blood loss (39.26 ± 7.33 mL vs. 53.74 ± 10.69 mL, P  < 0.001), external fixation time (2.02 ± 0.31 month vs. 2.57 ± 0.38 month, P  = 0.045), external fixation index (0.27 ± 0.08 month/cm vs. 0.44 ± 0.09 month/cm, P  = 0.042), and bone union time (8.37 ± 2.30 month vs. 9.07 ± 3.12, P  = 0.032) between Group A and Group B. The excellent and good rate of bone and functional results were higher in Group A compared to Group B (76.9% vs. 75% and 84.6% vs. 58.3%). Statistically significant differences were observed in functional results (excellent/good/fair/poor, 5/6/2/0 vs. 2/5/4/1, P  = 0.013) and complication per patient (0.38 vs. 1.16, P  = 0.012) between Group A and Group B. Conclusions Bone transport using a combined technique of external fixators over an intramedullary nail proved to be an effective method in treating tibial bone defects caused by infection. In comparison to circular external fixators, bone transport utilizing a unilateral external fixator over an intramedullary nail resulted in less external fixation time, fewer complications, and better functional outcomes.