Eccentric Taylor spatial frame placement for the correction of femoral fracture deformity: a novel technique

Sibbel, Jacqueline; Abdulkarim, Ali; Fisher, R.; Krkovič, Matija

doi:10.1007/s00590-020-02639-w

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine children were treated with this concept in their study, and all of the patients were very happy to have the circular fixator exchange for the unilateral fixator during the treatment. Sibbel et al [35] described a novel technique of constructing the TSF eccentrically from the femur to allow the same level of comfort as a monolateral external fixator, while applying trigonometric principles to successfully retain the utility of the TSF prescription software. They concluded that this novel technique enables accurate multiplanar deformity correction as an outpatient without the significant social and psychological burden patients can experience with circular femoral frames.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correction outcomes of the postoperative malalignment salvaged by the temporary application of the hexapod external fixator in tibial diaphyseal fractures treated by monolateral external fixation

Liu

Liang

et al. 2021

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Postoperative malalignment in fractures treated by monolateral external fixation is not uncommon in clinical practice. Accurate reduction without excessive tissue disruption caused by surgical intervention and sequentially manage the fractures using monolateral external fixation for definitive treatment is still a challenge for surgeons. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the temporary application of the hexapod external fixator (HEF) for the postoperative malalignment correction in tibial diaphyseal fractures treated by monolateral external fixation. Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of 23 trauma patients with tibial diaphyseal fracture treated by the monolateral external fixation at our institution from January 2016 to May 2019. There were 21 males and 2 females with a mean age of 38 years (range 18-60 years). The hexapod external fixator was temporarily applied due to postoperative malalignment within two weeks and who unwilling to undergo a secondary surgical intervention. For patients with postoperative malalignment requiring correction, the HEF components were installed on the original existing half pins of the monolateral external fixator after removing the connecting rod. The standard anteroposterior and lateral X-rays of the injured limb combined with the temporary HEF were conducted to measure the hexapod external fixator parameters. Any residual deformities were corrected by gradual struts adjustment with the aid of computerbased software. When satisfactory alignment was achieved, the HEF was removed, and the monolateral external fixator was sequentially used as the definitive structure. Results: All patients acquired functional reduction, which was evaluated by radiographs. The mean correction time was 4 days (range 2 to 8 days). The mean coronal plane translation (1.3 ±1.0 mm), coronal plane angulation (0.9 ±0.7 °), sagittal plane translation (1.4 ±1.1 mm), and sagittal plane angulation (0.7 ±0.7 °) after correction were all less than those (7.0 ±4.9 mm, 4.7 ±2.3 °, 5.6 ±3.6 mm, 3.2 ±2.5 °) before correction. Conclusions: The temporary application of the hexapod external fixator is an alternative and feasible method for the postoperative malalignment correction in tibial diaphyseal fractures treated by monolateral external fixation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correction outcomes of the postoperative malalignment salvaged by the temporary application of the hexapod external fixator in tibial diaphyseal fractures treated by monolateral external fixation

Liu

Liang

et al. 2021

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bone Transport for Large Segmental Tibial Defects Using Taylor Spatial Frame versus the Ilizarov Circular Fixator

Shi,

Zhang,

et al. 2024

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveBone transport has become the gold standard for treating large segmental tibial bone defects. The technique for application the Ilizarov circular fixator (ICF) has a long learning curve and is associated with many complications. There are few clinical studies on bone transport via the Taylor spatial frame (TSF). The main purpose of this study was to compare the radiological and clinical and outcomes of bone transport by using the TSF and the ICF.MethodsThere were 62 patients included in this retrospective study from June 2011 to June 2021 and distributed to two groups according to the fixation method: a TSF group consisting of 30 patients and an ICF group consisting of 32 patients. Demographic information, surgical duration, external fixation times, external fixation index, final radiographic results, complications, and clinical outcomes were recorded and examined. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the ASAMI criteria during the most recent clinical visit. Then, statistical analysis such as independent‐samples t tests or chi‐Square test was performed.ResultsThe mean surgical duration in the TSF group was 93.8 ± 7.3 min, which was shorter than that in the ICF group (109.8 ± 1.4 min) (p < 0.05). Compared to the ICF group (10.2 ± 2.0 months), the TSF group (9.7 ± 1.8 months) had a shorter average external fixation time (p > 0.05). The external fixation index was 1.4 ± 0.2 m/cm and 1.5 ± 0.1 m/cm in the two groups. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the two groups. At the last follow‐up visit, the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and posterior proximal tibial angle (PPTA) in the TSF group were 88.1 ± 12.1° and 80.9 ± 1.3°, respectively. The MPTA and PPTA in the ICF group were 84.4 ± 2.4° and 76.2 ± 1.9°, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups (all p < 0.05). The complication rate was 50% in the TSF group and 75% in the ICF group. Moreover, the ASAMI score between the two groups was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05).ConclusionNo statistically significant difference was found in clinical outcomes between the use of Taylor spatial frame and Ilizarov circular fixator for treating large segmental tibial bone defects. However, TSF is a shorter and simpler procedure that causes fewer complications and improves limb alignment.

show abstract

Eccentric Taylor spatial frame placement for the correction of femoral fracture deformity: a novel technique

Cited by 2 publications

References 12 publications

Correction outcomes of the postoperative malalignment salvaged by the temporary application of the hexapod external fixator in tibial diaphyseal fractures treated by monolateral external fixation

Correction outcomes of the postoperative malalignment salvaged by the temporary application of the hexapod external fixator in tibial diaphyseal fractures treated by monolateral external fixation

Bone Transport for Large Segmental Tibial Defects Using Taylor Spatial Frame versus the Ilizarov Circular Fixator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About