Level IV, case series. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

Bone is a highly specialized connective tissue and has a rare quality as one of the few tissues that can repair without a scar to regain pre-injury structure and function. Despite the excellent healing capacity of bone, tumor, infection, trauma and surgery can lead to significant bone loss requiring skeletal augmentation. Bone loss in the lower limb poses a complex clinical problem, requiring reconstructive techniques to restore form and function. In the past, amputation may have been the only option; however, there is now an array of reconstructive possibilities and cellular therapies available to salvage a limb. In this review, we will evaluate current applications of bone tissue engineering techniques in limb reconstruction and identify potential strategies for future work.

No abstract

IntroductionCircular external fixators are fundamental to lower limb reconstruction, primarily in situations with a high risk of infection such as open fractures. During the Covid-19 pandemic, use of circular frames in our unit decreased, following departmental approval, due to resource management and in keeping with BOA guidelines as we opted to “consider alternative techniques for patients who require soft tissue reconstruction to avoid multiple operations”. These alternatives included the use of internal fixation (plate osteosynthesis and intramedullary nailing) as a measure to reduce the number of hospital attendances for patients and to conserve resources. This change in practice has continued in part following the pandemic with the increased use of internal fixation in cases previously deemed unsuitable for such techniques. We present our experience of this treatment strategy in the management of complex lower limb injuries, focusing on outcomes and consider the lessons learnt.Materials & MethodsData of patients with complex lower limb injuries treated before, during and after the pandemic were collected from our in-house trauma database, theatre records and follow up clinics. The rationale for choosing other techniques over a circular frame, the type of alternative technique used, the cost of such alternatives, the need for soft tissue reconstruction, time to recovery, complications and amputation rates were compared among groups.ResultsThese data suggest comparable outcomes between circular frames and alternative techniques can be achieved. A notable reduction in the number of circular frames applied during the review period was observed. Furthermore, frame fixation was associated with more frequent outpatient review and the associated implications for resource management.ConclusionsConclusion: The Covid-19 pandemic has posed great challenges to the Trauma and Orthopaedic community, forcing us to be flexible by adopting alternative treatment methods to traditional circular external fixation. These alternatives have proven feasible and potentially more cost effective, prompting their adoption in the post pandemic era. However, this change of practice is not without potential consequences and continued investigation is warranted.