Tibial pilon fractures treated with a periarticular external fixator: Retrospective study of 47 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Tibial pilon fractures are a treatment challenge, since there is no true gold standard treatment, and because of potential skin complications. Periarticular external fixation (PAEF) appears to produce good results, but the outcomes with the TL-HEX Trauma™ (Orthofix®, Verona, Italy) have not yet been evaluated. We performed a study with the following objectives: 1) evaluate time to union and union rate; 2) determine clinical and radiological results; 3) detect complications. HYPOTHESIS: PAEF will produce comparable fracture union to other external fixator techniques for tibial pilon fractures. METHODS: A single center, retrospective study, was done between June 2016 and December 2018. Patients who had a tibial pilon fracture operated with a PAEF were included if they had a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. Forty-seven patients were included; the mean follow-up was 2.45 years (1.2-3.7). The primary endpoint was the time to union and union rate at the final assessment. The secondary endpoints were the joint range of motion, residual pain (VAS), functional scores (AOFAS and SF12) and complication rate. RESULTS: The union rate was 70% (33/47) and the mean time to union was 201±79 days (89-369). The range of motion was significantly reduced relative to the contralateral side. Twenty patients had residual pain that averaged 2.9 (1-6) on the VAS. The mean AOFAS score was 74 points (51-95). Twenty patients (43%) suffered at least one complication. DISCUSSION: While a PAEF helps to avoid skin complications, in our study, it was associated with a lower union rate and longer time to union than in other published studies. This difference is likely due to a higher rate of open fractures and high-energy trauma in our study, different protocol for return to weightbearing and a different external fixator than other studies. This is the first study reporting the results of the TL-HEX Trauma in this indication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.

Medium-term evaluation of leg lengthening by ISKD® intramedullary nail in 28 patients: Should we still use this lengthening system?

INTRODUCTION: Lower-limb lengthening presently uses intramedullary nailing. There are motorized systems and mechanical systems, each with their specific complications. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of ISKD® mechanical nails (Orthofix Inc., Texas, USA) on 3D EOS® imaging, and also complications and functional impact. HYPOTHESIS: The study hypothesis was that nail lengthening is effective but should no longer use the ISKD® system, due to the high rate of specific complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study included 28 patients (14 female, 14 male) undergoing limb-lengthening by ISKD® nail between 2005 and 2018. Mean age was 29 years. Twenty-four procedures were femoral and 4 tibial. Lengthening and consolidation parameters and residual discrepancy were measured on 3D EOS® imaging. Complications and functional scores were collated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight ISKD® nails were implanted in 28 patients. Mean follow-up was 75 months. Planned lengthening was achieved in 78.5% of cases, for a mean lengthening of 34.5mm. Mean lengthening and consolidation indices were respectively 0.94mm/day and 105 days/cm. Length discrepancy showed significant correction, with improvement in functional scores (p<0.01). The overall complications rate was 67.9%, 76% of which were specific to the ISKD® nail. DISCUSSION: The present study confirmed that nail lengthening is an indication of choice in lower-limb length discrepancy, but that the ISKD® system should no longer be used, due to an excessive rate of specific complications. Complications are due to deficient control of lengthening rate, not found with new-generation motorized nails, which show much fewer complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study without control group.