Table 5.
Literature review
| Study | Number of patients | Infection control | Union or fusion rate | Limb Salvage rate | Mean follow up period in months (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makhdom et al 2020 (current study) | 28 | 80% | 87% | 89% | 40 (28 to 84) |
| Lam et al 2019 (12) | 67 (tibial FRI*, infected ankles and hindfoot) | 91% | 88.9% | 92% | 46 (13 to 177) |
| Conway et al 2014 (3) | 67 (Infected fusions) | 73% (27% recurrent infection) | 93% | 93% | 31 (12 to 122) |
| 43 (infected nonunions) | 70% (30% recurrent infection) | 100% | 100% | 39 (12 to115) | |
| Kanakaris et al 2014 (8) | 24 tibial and femur FRI | 96% | 96% | 96% | 21 (8 to36) |
| Metsemakers et al 2015 (18) | 5 tibial FRI | 100% | 75% | 100% | Only minimum 18 months of follow up reported |
| Pawar et al 2013 (21) | 5 Charcot infected ankles | 100% | 100% | 100% | 18 (12 to 24) |
| Qiang et al 2006 (22) | 13 tibial FRI; 6 Femur FRI | 94% | 94% | 94% | 16 (6 to 28) |
| Thonse et al 2007 (26) | long bone FRI (n=11) and infected fusions (n=9) | 95% | 85% | 100% | 16 (7 to 40) |
*Fracture-Related Infection.