Acute shortening and re-lengthening versus antibiotic calcium sulfate-loaded bone transport for the management of large segmental tibial defects after trauma

Abstract

Abstract Background The purpose of this paper was to compare the clinical effects of acute shortening and re-lengthening (ASR) technique with antibiotic calcium sulfate-loaded bone transport (ACSBT) technique for the management of large segmental tibial defects after trauma. Methods In this retrospective study, 68 patients with large segmental tibial defects were included and completely followed. The bone loss was 3–10 cm. ASR group included 32 patients, while ACSBT group contained 36. There was no significant difference in demographic information between the two groups. The external fixation time (EFT) and external fixation index (EFI) were compared. Bone defect healing and limb functions were evaluated according to the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) criteria. Complications were compared by Paley classification. Results The mean EFT was 9.2 ± 1.8 months in ASR group and 10.1 ± 2.0 months in ACSBT group, respectively. The mean EFI was 1.5 ± 0.2 month/cm and 1.4 ± 0.3 month/cm. According to the ASAMI criteria, in ASR group bone defect healing was excellent in 22 cases, good in 7 cases and fair in 3 cases. In ACSBT group, it was excellent in 23 cases, good in 11 cases and fair in 2 cases. In ASR group, the limb function was excellent in 15 cases, good in 7 cases and fair in 10 cases, while it was excellent in 14 cases, good in 9 cases and fair in 13 cases with ACSBT group. There was no significant difference in EFI, bone defect healing and limb functions between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of complications per patient in ACSBT group was significantly lower than that in ASR group (p < 0.05). Conclusion Both techniques can be successfully used for the management of large segmental tibial defects after trauma. There was no significant difference in EFI, limb functions and bone defect healing between the two groups. Compared with ASR group, the complication incidence in ACSBT group was lower, especially the infection-related complications. Therefore, for patients with large segmental bone defects caused by infection or osteomyelitis, ACSBT technique could be the first choice.