ABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of bone reconstruction and lengthening compared to amputation in the treatment of tibial hemimelia for patients and their families. Methods: Systematic review of articles published in English and Portuguese between 1982 and 2022 in the MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane and SciELO databases. The variables of interest were: year of publication, sample characteristics, classification of tibial hemimelia according to Jones, treatment outcome and follow-up time. Results: A total of eleven articles were included in the scope of this review. The studies involved 131 patients, 53.4% male and 46.6% female. The age of the patients who underwent a surgical procedure ranged from 1 year and 10 months to 15 years. The most common type was Jones' I (40.9%). The most recurrent complications in the reconstruction treatment were: infection of the external fixator path, flexion contracture (mainly of the knee), reduction in the range of motion of the knee and ankle. Conclusion: We did not find enough relevant studies in the literature to prove the superiority of reconstruction. Amputation remains the gold standard treatment for tibial hemimelia to this day. Level of Evidence III, systematic review of level III studies.
Objetivo: Avaliar as vantagens e desvantagens da reconstrução óssea e alongamento comparada à amputação no tratamento da hemimelia tibial para pacientes e familiares. Métodos: Revisão sistemática, com análise de artigos publicados nas línguas inglesa e portuguesa entre 1982 e 2022, nas bases de dados MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane e SciELO. As variáveis de interesse foram: ano de publicação, característica da amostra, classificação da hemimelia tibial segundo Jones, desfecho do tratamento e tempo de seguimento. Resultados: Fizeram parte do escopo desta revisão onze artigos. Os estudos envolveram 131 pacientes, 53,4% do sexo masculino e 46,6% do feminino. A idade dos pacientes submetidos a algum procedimento cirúrgico variou de 1 ano e 10 meses a 15 anos. O tipo mais comum foi o I de Jones (40,9%). As complicações mais recorrentes no tratamento pela reconstrução foram: infecção do trajeto de pinos do fixador externo, contratura em flexão (principalmente do joelho), redução do arco de movimento de joelho e tornozelo. Conclusão: Não encontramos na literatura estudos suficientemente relevantes para comprovar a superioridade da reconstrução. A amputação se mantém até os dias de hoje o tratamento padrão-ouro para hemimelia tibial. Nível de evidência III; revisão sistemática de estudos de nível III.
ABSTRACT
Vertically unstable pelvic injuries associated with sacroiliac disruption are challenging. Although percutaneous iliosacral fixation using two screws at S1 vertebral body has been shown beneficial, the use of two transiliac screws at S1 has been proposed to increase the fixation strength of the construct. In the herein study, the finite element method (FEM) was performed to analyse the biomechanical behaviour of five different constructions using iliosacral screws only, transiliac screws only, and combining an iliosacral and a transiliac screw. A vertically unstable AO 61C1.2 type pelvic injury was produced for the evaluation of the posterior pelvic displacement and implant stress, and the anterior implant stress using FEM. The symphysis pubis was fixed with a 3.5-mm reconstruction plate in all cases. The model was axially loaded with 800N applied in the centre of S1 body, perpendicular to the ground (Y-axis), simulating the bipodal stance moment. There was a statistically significant reduction in both posterior displacement and implant stresses in the groups fixed with at least one transiliac screw compared to the groups fixed with iliosacral screws. In our FEM study, the construct using two transiliac screws in S1 is biomechanically superior for stabilizing the sacroiliac joint in vertically unstable pelvic ring injuries compared to the other configurations. Lateral displacement, posterior displacement, and von Mises stress were reduced with this construct. A good option can be the use of one iliosacral screw and one transiliac screw in S1.
