Search

Traditional Ilizarov and hexapod frames have different biomechanical properties and there is limited literature regarding their effect on time to fracture union or time to frame removal. Tibial fractures managed with a circular frame at a tertiary limb reconstruction referral centre between 2011 and 2018 were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database. They were classified into three treatment groups; Ilizarov style, Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) and TrueLok Hex (TL-Hex). Data were extracted from electronic patient records and digital radiographs. The primary outcome was time to frame removal, which was seen as an indicator of clinical and radiological fracture union. Odds ratios were calculated with the clinical significance set at 30 days. 274 patients (median age 49 years, 36% female) were included in the analysis. 8.4% Ilizarov, 10.5% TSF and 13.5% TL-Hex frames required further surgery to aid fracture healing (p = 0.38). 30% of patients had open fractures. Median time to removal for Ilizarov, TSF & TL Hex frames was 167, 198 and 185 days respectively. There was a significant difference between Ilizarov and hexapod frames. Both TSF (OR 2.2, p <0.003) and TL-Hex (OR 1.8, p <0.04) had a significantly increased time to removal of 30 days or more compared with Ilizarov frames.The time to frame removal in metaphyseal fractures was significantly shorter for Ilizarov frame fixation than hexapod frames (p = 0.04). Open fractures were significantly more likely to require at least 30 days extra time to removal than closed fractures (OR 3.3, p <0.001). There was no significant difference in the time to frame removal between fracture location, age or sex. Ilizarov frames have demonstrated a reduced time to frame removal in the management of tibial fractures than hexapod frames. Differences in the time to frame removal, an indicator of time to fracture union, may be due to the different mechanical properties of the frame, or early disruption of the fracture haematoma through secondary frame manipulation and fracture reduction, increased proportion of metaphyseal fractures treated with Ilizarov, or patient selection. The healing time was comparable across the tibia. Pooled meta-analyses may be able to further quantify these associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Superficial pin site infection is a common problem associated with external fixation, which has been extensively reported. However, the incidence and risk factors with regard to deep infection are rarely reported in the literature. In this study, we investigate and explore the incidence and risk factors of deep infection following circular frame surgery. For the purpose of this study, deep infection was defined as persistent discharge or collection for which surgical intervention was recommended., Materials and Methods: This study is retrospective review of all patients who underwent frame surgery between April 1, 2015 and April 1, 2019 in our unit with a minimum of 1 year follow-up following frame removal. We recorded patient demographics, patient risk factors, trauma or elective procedure, number of days the frame was in situ , location of infection and fracture pattern., Results: Three-hundred and four patients were identified. Twenty-seven patients were excluded as they were lost to follow-up or had their primary frame surgery as a treatment for infection. This provided us with 277 patients for analysis. The mean age was 47 years (range: 9-89 years), the male to female ratio was 1.5:1, and 80% were trauma frames. Thirteen patients (4.69%) developed deep infection, and all occurred in trauma patients. Of the 13 patients who developed deep infection, 4 had infection before frame removal, and infection occurred in 9 after frame removal. Deep infections occurred in 8 patients within a year of frame removal and in one patient between 1 and 2 years of frame removal.Within the 13 frame procedures for trauma, 12 were periarticular multi-fragmentary fractures, 3 of which were open, and the remaining were an open diaphyseal fracture. The periarticular fractures were more likely to develop deep infection than diaphyseal fractures (p = 0.033). Twelve patients (out of 13) also had concurrent minimally invasive internal fixation with screws in very close proximity of the wires., Conclusion: The rate of deep infection following circular frame surgery appears to be low. Pooled, multi-centre data would be required to analyse risk factors; however, multi-fragmentary, periarticular fracture and the requirement for additional internal fixation appear to be an associated factor., How to Cite This Article: Ting J, Moulder E, Muir R, et al . The Incidence of Deep Infection Following Lower Leg Circular Frame Fixation with Minimum of 1-year Follow-up from Frame Removal. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2022;17(2):88-91., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None, (Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).)