Ilizarov bone transport and treatment of critical-sized tibial bone defects: a narrative review

• Published in: Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology Vol. 20; no. 1; pp. 22 - 14
• Main Authors: Aktuglu, Kemal, Erol, Kubilay, Vahabi, Arman
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 16-04-2019; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Amputation; Bone defect; Bone healing; Bone transport; Complications; Conservative Orthopedics; Controversies in Orthopaedics and Traumatology; Critical size; Defects; Distraction osteogenesis; Docking; English language; Fixation; Heterogeneity; Ilizarov; Medical personnel; Medical treatment; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Orthopedics; Patients; Review; Review Article; Rheumatology; Sports Medicine; Stiffness; Surgical Orthopedics; Tibia; Traumatic Surgery; Bone defect; Critical size; Bone transport; Ilizarov; Distraction osteogenesis
• ISSN: 1590-9921; 1590-9999
• DOI: 10.1186/s10195-019-0527-1

Background
Critical-sized bone defects of the tibia are complex injuries associated with significant problems that are difficult to treat, and they are associated with a significant burden of disease in clinical practice; however, the treatment of these cases has still been a challenge for orthopedic surgeons. The aim of this review was to evaluate the current available studies reporting on classical Ilizarov methods in the treatment of infected or noninfected critical-sized bone defects of the tibia, and to perform an analysis of treatment period and complications.
Methods
This is a narrative review based on a comprehensive literature search among the studies in Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science articles. The studies included were written in the English language or translated to English and they were published between 2008 and 2018. They were appraised with narrative data synthesis. The primary outcome measures were the external fixation time (EFT), bone union rate, and bone and functional results. Secondary outcomes were complications including docking site problems and solutions. The heterogeneity of the data in the studies which were taken into consideration allowed a narrative analysis.
Results
Twenty-seven articles with 619 patients were included in this study. These included 6 prospective and 21 retrospective case series. Mean age was 36.1 (range 13–89) years. Of the cases, 88.8% were infected and the remaining 11.2% were noninfected. The external fixation time was 10.75 (range 2.5–23.2) months. The mean bone union rate was 90.2% (range 77–100)%. Radiographic outcome measures were reported in 20 studies. Functional outcome measures were reported in 18 studies. ASAMI (Association for the Study of the Method of Ilizarov) criteria are useful and give reproducible data on patient outcome measurements. Data collected from these studies showed excellent radiological outcomes in 303, good in 143, fair in 31, and poor in 25 patients. Functional outcomes were excellent in 200, good in 167, fair in 58, and poor in 19, where reported. The excellent and good rate in bone results and functional results were 88.8% and 82.6%, respectively. The poor rate in bone results and functional results were 5% and 4.5%. Mean complication rate per patient was 1.22 (range 3–60). The most common complication was pin tract infection (PTI). Its occurrence was 46.6%. Joint stiffness followed PTI with a 25% incidence. The rates of refracture, malunion, infectious recurrence, and amputation, were 4%, 8.4%, 4.58%, and 1%, respectively.
Conclusions
This narrative review shows that the patients with infected or noninfected critical-sized tibial bone defects treated by Ilizarov methods had a low rate of poor bone and functional results. Therefore, Ilizarov methods may be a good choice for the treatment of infected or noninfected tibial bone defects. The small number of cases in some studies, the absence of homogenity between studies and the fact that most data available are derived from retrospective studies are some of the difficulties encountered in the evaluation of evidence.
Level of evidence
V.