header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

ILIZAROV TREATMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF NON-UNION OF THE TIBIA

British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) 2006



Abstract

Introduction

The Ilizarov method for non-union comprises a range of treatment protocols designed to generate tissue, correct deformity, eradicate infection and secure union. The choice of specific reconstruction method is difficult, but should depend on the biological and mechanical needs of the non-union. We present a prospective series of patients with non-union of the tibia managed using a treatment algorithm based on the Ilizarov method and the viability of the non-union.

Patients and methods

Forty-four patients (34 men and 10 women) were treated with 26 viable and 18 non-viable non-unions. Mean duration of non-union was 19 months (range 2-168). 25 patients had associated limb deformity and 37 cases were infected. 42 patients had undergone at least one previous operation. Bone resection was dictated by the presence of non-viable and infected tissue. Four Ilizarov protocols were used (monofocal distraction in 18 cases, monofocal compression in 11 cases, bifocal compression-distraction in 10 cases and 5 bone transports) depending on the stiffness of the non-union or the presence of segmental defect.

Results

Union was achieved in 40 cases (91%) with Ilizarov method alone. Infection was eradicated in 35 cases (95%). Monofocal distraction produced union in all 18 stiff non-unions with little morbidity. Monofocal compression was successful in only 82% of mobile non-unions but failed to eradicate infection in 2 of 10 cases. Bifocal techniques allowed infection-free union in all 15 difficult segmental infected non-unions but required prolonged treatment times and bone grafting to docking sites. Complications included pin infection, hindfoot stiffness, refracture, one below-knee amputation and residual limb length discrepancy.

Conclusion

We do not recommend monofocal compression in the treatment of infected, mobile non-unions. Distraction (monofocal or bifocal) was effective and is associated with high rates of clearance of infection.