Proximal versus distal tibial bone transport in the treatment of chronic tibial osteomyelitis
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20190815-00284
- VernacularTitle:胫骨近端与远端截骨搬运在胫骨骨髓炎治疗中的效果比较
- Author:
Guoyun CHENG
1
;
Qingrong LIN
;
Chunhao ZHOU
;
Xiangqing MENG
;
Hongan ZHANG
;
Jia FANG
;
Chenghe QIN
Author Information
1. 南方医科大学南方医院骨科，广州 510515
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2020;22(5):379-383
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical effects on new bone formation and foot-ankle function between proximal tibial bone transport and distal tibial bone transport in the treatment of massive bone defects after tibial osteomyelitis debridement.Methods:From July 2012 to July 2017, 42 patients with chronic tibial osteomyelitis received bone transport surgery at Department of Orthopaedics, Nanfang Hospital.According to the Cierny-Mader classification for chronic osteomyelitis, all of them belonged to diffusive tibial osteomyelitis (type IV).Of them, 32 were treated by proximal tibial bone transport after tibial osteomyelitis debridement.In the proximal group, there were 27 males and 5 females, aged from 17 to 65 years and involving 20 left and 12 right sides. The other 10 cases received distal tibial bone transport. In the distal group, all of them were male, aged from 25 to 63 years and involving 6 left and 4 right sides. The 2 groups were compared in terms of external fixation index (EFI) and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society(AOFAS) Ankle and Hindfoot Scale.Results:There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the preoperative general data such as gender, age or osteomyelitis site, indicating the 2 groups were comparable ( P>0.05). Both groups obtained complete follow-up. The proximal group was followed up for 590.1 d ± 287.3 d and the distal group for 615.6 d ± 130.6 d, showing no significant difference between groups ( P>0.05). In the proximal group 2 cases developed talipes equinovalgus after bone transport while in the distal group 3 cases did, and surgical intervention was needed for them. Surgical intervention was also carried out for16 cases of non-union at the docking site in the proximal group and for 2 ones in the distal group. The EFI was 76.2 d/cm±50.0 d/cm for the proximal group and 84.3 d/cm ± 59.9 d/cm for the distal group, showing no significant difference between groups ( P>0.05). The AOFAS scores were 81.4±10.1 for the proximal group and 60.0±5.9 for the distal group, showing a significant difference ( P<0.05). Conclusion:In the treatment of massive bone defects after tibial osteomyelitis debridement, no significant difference has been observed in the effect on bone formation between proximal tibial bone transport and distal tibial bone transport, but the former transport may have a less adverse effect on foot-ankle function.
