Retrospective clinical outcomes in the definitive treatment of high-energy tibial diaphyseal fractures using hexapod external fixator versus monolateral external fixator

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Apr 8;23(1):330. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05257-1.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: External fixation; Hexapod external fixator; High-energy trauma; Monolateral external fixator; Tibial diaphyseal fracture.

MeSH terms

  • Diaphyses / diagnostic imaging
  • Diaphyses / surgery
  • External Fixators*
  • Fracture Fixation / adverse effects
  • Fracture Fixation / methods
  • Fracture Healing
  • Humans
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Tibial Fractures* / diagnostic imaging
  • Tibial Fractures* / etiology
  • Tibial Fractures* / surgery
  • Treatment Outcome