Abstract
Background
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and outcomes of bifocal bone transport (BFT) and trifocal bone transport (TFT) for the treatment of tibial bone defects caused by fracture-related infection (FRI).
Methods
The literature searches of Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar databases, PubMed/Medline, and Web of Science for literature published up to September 20, 2022, were performed. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the MINORS scale. Patients were divided into the BFT group and the TFT group, depending on the site of the osteotomy. The demographic data, defect size (DS), external fixation time (EFT), external fixation index (EFI), bone and functional results, complications, and autologous bone grafting (ABG) were extracted and analyzed using the Review Manager software (version 5.3).
Results
Five studies included 484 patients with tibial bone defects treated by bone transport investigated in this meta-analysis, with a mean bone defect of 9.3 cm. There were statistical differences in DS (MD = − 2.38, 95% CI − 3.45 to − 1.32, P < 0.0001), EFT (MD = 103.44, 95% CI 60.11 to 146.77, P < 0.00001), and EFI (MD = 26.02, 95% CI 14.38 to 37.65, P < 0.00001) between BFT group and TFT group. There was no statistical difference in bone results (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06, P = 0.67), functional results (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, P = 0.37), complications (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.14, P = 0.36), and ABG (RR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.84, P = 0.42) between two groups.
Conclusions
TFT was a feasible and practical method in the treatment of massive tibial bone defects caused by FRI to receive shorter EFT and satisfactory bone and functional results.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-023-03636-5.
Keywords: Bone defects, Bone transport, Complications, Ilizarov method, Infection
Background
Bone defects caused by fracture-related infection (FRI) remain challenging orthopaedic problems for surgeons [1–3]. Over the past decades, bone defects of the lower extremities have been successfully treated with several protocols, including the Ilizarov technique [4], the Masquelet technique [5], vascularized autogenous bone grafting [6], etc. Bone transport, based on the Ilizarov technique, has gradually become the gold standard for the treatment of infectious bone defects since its advantages of radical debridement, and satisfactory outcomes of bone union and function recovery [7–9]. However, the limb functionality may be impaired by massive bone loss after previous excessive surgical procedures, including impaired vascular circulation, adjacent joint ankylosis and complex postoperative complications.
A study published by Borzunov showed the findings of multilevel bone transport for the management of extensive long bone defects and considered it may provide a solution for reducing the total treatment time [10]. Subsequently, many studies presented satisfactory results using bifocal bone transport (BFT) or trifocal bone transport (TFT) in the treatment of bone defects caused by FRI, including simplified surgical procedure, certainly reducing the total external fixation time, and fewer true complications [11, 12]. However, few meta-analyses or system review focus on the evaluation of indications and success rates of these two techniques. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcome of BFT and TFT for the treatment of tibial bone defects caused by FRI.
Methods
Literature search strategy
Comprehensive literature searches of Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar databases, PubMed/Medline, and Web of Science for studies published up to September 20, 2022, were performed by our institutional library information specialist. Treatment strategies identified were as follows: Ilizarov technique, distraction osteogenesis, bifocal (single-level) bone transport, trifocal (double-level) bone transport, nonunion, and fracture-related infection.
The studies were included as follows: a series of more than ten patients, bone defect caused by FRI, treated by bone transport, and comparative trials reported by English. Publications reported non-original data (e.g., systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, commentaries, special technique), overlapped data, and non-English published studies were excluded.
Data extraction
A comprehensive literature search was performed by two independent authors (KL and HYZ), and the quality of the methodology was assessed, which yielded 5 eligible articles [11–15]. Possible conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. The following outcome variables were extracted for pooled analysis (Additional file 1):
General information of all studies, including study design and demographic data.
Clinical data of all studies, including defect size (DS), external fixation time (EFT), external fixation index (EFI), bone union time (BUT), bone and function outcomes, bone union rate, and complications.
Fig. 1.
Inclusion flowchart
Quality assessment
The quality of the included studies was evaluated via the MINORS scale, which was considered suitable for surgical non-randomized controlled interventional studies [16]. MINORS quality evaluation table suggests that literature with a score less than 12 should not be included in Meta-analysis. In one study [11], EFI reported by months/cm was converted to days/cm.
Statistical analysis
The Review Manager software (version 5.3, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) was utilized to perform statistical analysis and establish forest plots. Relative risk (RR) was used for dichotomous variables, and mean difference (MD) was applied for continuous variables as the combined statistic. The 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of variables was calculated and presented for pooled estimates. Heterogeneity among included studies was evaluated using the I2 statistics and Cochran's Q test. The random-effects model was applied when heterogeneity was significant (P < 0.05 or I2 > 50%), otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used. P < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference. The publication bias of the included studies was independently and graphically assessed for clinical outcomes using funnel plots.
Results
General population demographics
A total of 467 articles were excluded according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria after the initial selection, and 5 articles [11–15] were finally obtained. In these studies, 484 patients with tibial bone defects were treated by bone transport, with a mean bone defect of 9.3 cm. The document retrieval process was shown in Fig. 1. Studies describing only BTF or TFT were excluded to avoid heterogeneity. A quality assessment of included studies was performed using a MINORS (methodological index for non-randomized studies) checklist and presented in Table 1. Demographic data and clinical outcomes of the eligible studies were respectively presented in Tables 2, 3.
Table 1.
Risk-of-bias assessment of the included studies according to the MINORS scale
| Methodological items | Abulaiti 2022 | Catagni 2019 | Li 2020 | Liu 2020 | Yushan 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A clearly stated aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Inclusion of consecutive patients | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Prospective collection of data | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Loss to follow-up less than 5% | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Prospective calculation of the study size | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| An adequate control group | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Contemporary groups | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Baseline equivalence of groups | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Adequate statistical analyses | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Total score | 16 | 19 | 16 | 17 | 16 |
The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate)
Table 2.
Baseline characteristics of the included studies
| Reference | Study design | Number of patients |
Male/ female ratio |
Age (year) |
Follow-up time (month) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abulaiti et al | RC | 53 | 39/14 | 38.8(19–65) | nr |
| Catagni et al | RC | 86 | 77/9 | BFT, 43 (23 to 54) | 45.6(26.4–108) |
| TFT, 42 (33 to 51.5) | |||||
| Li et al | RC | 26 | 20/6 | 40.4(22–56) | 28.5(13–38) |
| Liu et al | R | 282 | 243/39 | 40 (18–65) | ≥ 24 |
| Yushan et al | RC | 37 | 28/9 | 40.1(18–57) | 29.4(24–38) |
BFT, bifocal bone transport; nr, not reported; R, retrospective; RC, retrospective comparison; TFT, trifocal bone transport
Table 3.
Clinical outcomes of the included studies
| Reference | Treatment technique | Number of patients | Infection nonunion (%) |
DS (cm) |
EFT (day) |
EFI (day/cm) |
Bone result (ASAMI, excellent and good) |
Function result (ASAMI, excellent and good) |
Complication (per patient) |
ABG (%) | Bone union rate(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abulaiti et al | BFT | 32 | 10(31.2%) | 7.8 ± 1.8 | 474.5 ± 103.2 | 60.8 ± 1.9 | 28 | 26 | 0.96(31/32) | 4(12.5%) | 32(100%) |
| TFT | 21 | 7(33.3%) | 9.4 ± 1.5 | 328.0 ± 57.2 | 34.8 ± 2.1 | 19 | 18 | 0.52(11/21) | 1(4.7%) | 21(100%) | |
| Catagni et al | BFT | 45 | 16(35.5%) | 12.5 ± 2.4 | 345.0 ± 54.1 | 27.6 ± 1.3 | 41 | 35 | 0.64(29/45) | 16(35.5%) | 45(100%) |
| TFT | 41 | 22(53.6%) | 13.5 ± 2.5 | 261.0 ± 45.7 | 19.3 ± 1.1 | 38 | 33 | 0.46(21/45) | 11(26.8%) | 41(100%) | |
| Li et al | BFT | 13 | 13(100%) | 7.2 ± 0.8 | 541.8 ± 44.7 | 75.7 ± 7.8 | 9 | 10 | 0.23(3/13) | 4(30.7%) | 13(100%) |
| TFT | 13 | 13(100%) | 10.6 ± 2.3 | 381.3 ± 57.6 | 36.6 ± 6.0 | 11 | 12 | 0.3(4/13) | 2(15.3%) | 13(100%) | |
| Liu et al | BFT | 221 | 32(14.4%) | 5.8 ± 1.6 | 385.1 ± 89.0 | 66.5 ± 8.5 | 182 | 106 | 0.3(68/221) | 29(13.1%) | 221(100%) |
| TFT | 61 | 9(14.7%) | 9.1 ± 1.7 | 340.6 ± 52.1 | 38.0 ± 6.5 | 51 | 30 | 0.37(23/61) | 9(14.7%) | 61(100%) | |
| Yushan et al | BFT | 21 | 21(100%) | 7.6 ± 2.3 | 299.9 ± 128.2 | 62.2 ± 24.6 | 19 | 17 | 0.8(17/21) | 1(4.7%) | 21(100%) |
| TFT | 16 | 16(100%) | 10.3 ± 3.4 | 207.0 ± 40.4 | 32.9 ± 9.2 | 13 | 15 | 0.81(13/16) | 1(6.2%) | 16(100%) |
ABG, autologous bone grafting; ASAMI, Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Ilizarov; BFT, bifocal bone transport; DS, defect size; EFI, external fixation index; EFT, external fixation time; nr, not reported; TFT, trifocal bone transport
Defect size
Five studies [11–15] reported DS, including 484 patients. There were 332 patients in the BFT group and 152 patients in the TFT group. Heterogeneity analysis showed that there was significant statistical heterogeneity between these studies (P = 0.0001, I2 = 83%). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model presented that DS was significantly lower in the BFT group than in the TFT group (MD = − 2.38, 95% CI − 3.45 to − 1.32, P < 0.0001). DS of the TFT group was greater than the BFT group, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Comparison of DS between the BFT and TFT groups
External fixation time
There was significant statistical heterogeneity in EFT (P < 0.00001, I2 = 90%) among these five studies [11–15]. The random-effects model analysis showed a statistical difference between the BFT and TFT groups (MD = 103.44, 95% CI 60.11 to 146.77, P < 0.00001). The results showed a statistical difference in EFT between the two groups, and the EFT of the TFT group was lower than the BFT group (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3.
Comparison of EFT between the BFT and TFT groups
External fixation index
EFI was recorded by all five studies [11–15], and significant statistical heterogeneity was noticed (P < 0.00001, I2 = 100%). The random-effects model was utilized to analyse the data and there was a significant difference between the two groups (MD = 26.02, 95% CI 14.38 to 37.65, P < 0.00001). The results showed that the EFI of the TFT group was lower than the BFT group (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4.
Comparison of EFI between the BFT and TFT groups
Bone results
Five studies [11–15] reported bone results based on ASAMI criteria. Heterogeneity analysis showed no statistical heterogeneity among studies (P = 0.82, I2 = 0%). A fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the excellent and good rate of bone results between the BFT group and TFT group (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06, P = 0.67), indicating that the excellent and good rate of bone results was no statistical difference between two groups (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5.
Comparison of bone results between the BFT and TFT groups
Functional results
Functional results were documented in all five studies [11–15] based on ASAMI criteria. Heterogeneity analysis showed no statistical heterogeneity among studies (P = 0.89, I2 = 0%). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model showed that there was no significant difference in the excellent and good rate of functional results between the BFT group and TFT group (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, P = 0.37), indicating that the excellent and good rate of functional results was no statistical difference between two groups (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6.
Comparison of functional results between the BFT and TFT groups
Complications
Five studies [11–15] reported the rate of complications in two groups. Heterogeneity analysis showed that there was statistical heterogeneity among the studies (P = 0.01, I2 = 70%). A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results showed that the TFT group had a lower complication rate than the BFT group. However, there was no statistical difference in the rate of true complication (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.14, P = 0.36), as shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.
Comparison of postoperative complication between the BFT and TFT groups
Autologous bone grafting
The rate of autologous bone grafting (ABG) was recorded in five studies [11–15], and no significant statistical heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.73, I2 = 0%). The fixed-effects model was applied and the statistical difference between the two groups was not noticed (RR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.84, P = 0.42), indicating that the rate of ABG was no statistical difference between the two groups (Fig. 8). The publication bias of bone results, functional results, complications and ABG were visually displayed using a funnel plot, which showed symmetrical distribution around the funnel plot, indicating low publication bias for those two groups (Fig. 9).
Fig. 8.
Comparison of autologous bone graft between the BFT and TFT groups
Fig. 9.
Funnel plot of the bone results, functional results, complications, and ABG between BFT and TFT groups
Discussion
The bone defect caused by FRI usually involved both bone and soft tissue pathological conditions, which was a great challenge in the field of orthopaedics surgery [8, 9]. Treatment for bone defects caused by FRI was mainly characterized by infection control and bone regeneration [17]. The physiological function recovery of affected limbs depended on the functionality of callus formation and bone remodeling which both play a role of paramount importance. Bone transport had been reported as a practical method for the management of bone defects caused by FRI, since it could resolve both bone defect and soft tissue loss simultaneously via slowly distracting the transport bone segment to promote angiogenesis and osteogenesis, without the limitation of defect size [7, 10]. However, this technique also had the disadvantages of a long total treatment period, high risk of complications, and psychological burden of cumbersome appearance.
Borzunov et al. [10] described a method that multifocal bone transport using multilevel osteotomy could effectively reduce the EFT and EFI and receive satisfactory bone results, compared to bifocal bone transport. Subsequently, some studies on the trifocal bone transport technique had also reported that it had distinct advantages in the treatment of massive bone defects of the tibia [11, 12, 14]. Via previous articles [9, 10, 12] the distraction phase of multifocal bone transport was 2.5 times higher than bifocal bone transport, while the consolidation phase was reduced by 1.3 to 1.9 times. Further, Yushan et al. [18] initiatively found that tetrafocal and pentafocal bone transport could shorten the distraction phase, fasten bone regeneration, and reduce the associated complications. However, there were many comparative studies on bifocal and trifocal bone transport for the treatment of tibial bone defects, but no conclusions had been drawn from these results [11–15]. This study was the first meta-analysis addressing the issue.
DS usually determined the surgical strategy, which directly affected the condition of bone regeneration and functional recovery. Paley et al. [19] considered that bifocal bone transport was suggested to be used for DS > 10 cm. However, Robert et al. [20] suggested that trifocal bone transport should be considered when DS > 6 cm. Borzunov and Chevardin [21] suggested that poor bone regeneration might occur in the distraction area when bifocal bone transport was utilized to treat bone defects with DS > 5 cm or larger than 40% of the original segment. Liu et al. [13] thought that patients with DS > 6 cm treated by bifocal bone transport might lead to poor bone results and complications, including axial deviation, soft tissue incarceration and delayed union, which required additional surgical interventions and prolong EFT. In this study, there was a statistical difference in DS, EFT and EFI between the two groups (P < 0.05, Figs. 2, 3, 4), indicating that TFT was a reliable method for the management of bone defect > 6 cm.
The most common parameters of postoperative outcome evaluation using bone transport were EFT and EFI. EFT referred to the time spent until removing the external fixation, and EFI was defined as the ratio of EFT (days or months) to DS (cm). Despite the definition of BUT being still controversial, these were all essential indices for evaluating the quality of bone transport. Some scholars [9, 14] considered that BUT should be defined as the duration of consolidation without the distraction phase. Others [13, 15] believed that BUT was the total duration of bone union, which was similar to EFT. In this study, therefore, the value of EFI was uniformly defined as days/cm. Further, the mean EFI of the BFT group (range, 27.6–75.7 days/cm) was higher than the TFT group (range, 19.3–38 days/cm), which illustrated that TFT could significantly reduce the EFT and EFI.
As previously mentioned, bone transport using the Ilizarov technique, the ‘gold standard’ surgery, when the tibial bone defects caused by FRI, was to bridge the defect by promoting self-angiogenesis and osteogenesis. However, different results were yielded as the different distraction osteogenesis protocol and postoperative management after the surgery for most patients. ASAMI criteria were often adopted to assess bone and functional results in these five studies [8, 11–15]. The excellent and good rate of bone results in the TFT group (range, 81.2% to 92.6%) was higher than BFT group (range, 69.2% to 91.1%), and the excellent and good rate of functional results in the TFT group (range, 49.1% to 93.7%) was higher than the BFT group (range, 47.9% to 81.2%). However, there was no statistical difference in the excellent and good rate of bone results and functional results between the two groups (P > 0.05), which may be attributed to the limited number of literature. Although these two techniques were both practical in the treatment of tibial defects, more satisfactory outcomes of bone and functional results in the TFT group were received.
Pin tract infection was the most common complication associated with the utilization of external fixation in all studies [11–15, 19]. Further, the axial deviation was more likely to occur with the use of a unilateral external fixator. Complications were assessed according to Paley’s classification [19]. The incidence of complication in the BFT group (range, 23–96.8%) was higher than in the TFT group (range, 30.7–81.2%). Delayed union or nonunion at the docking site was the common complication in the management of massive bone defects, which usually required revision surgery. Despite cyclic distraction and compression (“accordion technique”) being feasible to salvage delayed union, ABG at the docking site after the distraction phase had still been advocated by some authors [8–10]. since a higher rate of the union. In this meta-analysis, the rate of revision surgery using ABG in the BFT group (range, 4.7–35.5%) was higher than in the TFT group (range, 4.7–26.8%). Hence, careful manipulation, detailed postoperative management and rehabilitation guidance played an important role in effectively preventing the occurrence of complications.
There were several potential limitations in this study. The included literature was non-randomized controlled studies with unclear methodological descriptions, which may result in a lower MINORS score. The analysis of outcome data was not performed by an independent investigator with blinding evaluation. The sample size of studies included in this Meta-analysis was small, and there was a lack of multicenter large-sample studies. There was a lack of methodology for outcome evaluation according to ethnicity, which may be a risk of bias. Therefore, further research may consider including prospective randomized controlled studies with large sizes of samples and blinding evaluation to avoid the potential risk of bias. Furthermore, it was also worth investigating the effect of combined techniques to promote bone regeneration to reduce the consolidation phase, including osteogenic factors, pharmacological agents, or bone formation-inducing proteins.
Conclusion
This study was the first review of bifocal or trifocal bone transport for massive tibial bone defects caused by FRI, which identified the Ilizarov bone transport for the treatment of tibial bone defects caused by FRI. Overall published work showed a high bone union rate of 100% and a complication rate of 45.4% with no recurrence of infection. TFT was a feasible and practical method in the treatment of massive tibial bone defects caused by FRI to acquire shorter EFT and satisfactory bone and functional results. Radical debridement always played an essential role in controlling the infection. Pin tract infection was the most common complication with the utilization of external fixation. Dynamic technique and ABG were both effective methods for the management of docking site nonunion.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author contribution
KL, HYZ, and AY developed the research questions and scope of the study. KL and XM conducted preoperative and postoperative data screening, and data charting. KL drafted the manuscript and prepared tables, and figures with HYZ’s contribution. KL and AY contributed to the organization, analysis, and interpretation of the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO. 82060401).
Availability of data and materials
The data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to restrictions on ethical approvals involving patient data and anonymity but can be obtained from the corresponding author as reasonably required.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Kai Liu and Hongyan Zhang contributed equally to this work
References
- 1.Moriarty TF, Metsemakers WJ, Morgenstern M, Hofstee MI, Vallejo DA, Cassat JE, Wildemann B, Depypere M, Schwarz EM, Richards RG. Fracture-related infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022;8(1):67. doi: 10.1038/s41572-022-00396-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Baertl S, Metsemakers WJ, Morgenstern M, Alt V, Richards RG, Moriarty TF, Young K. Fracture-related infection. Bone Joint Res. 2021;10(6):351–353. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.106.BJR-2021-0167.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Metsemakers WJ, Morgenstern M, Senneville E, Borens O, Govaert G, Onsea J, Depypere M, Richards RG, Trampuz A, Verhofstad M, et al. General treatment principles for fracture-related infection: recommendations from an international expert group. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(8):1013–1027. doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03287-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Goldstein RY, Jordan CJ, McLaurin TM, Grant A. The evolution of the Ilizarov technique: part 2: the principles of distraction osteosynthesis. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;71(1):96–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Masquelet A, Kanakaris NK, Obert L, Stafford P, Giannoudis PV. Bone repair using the masquelet technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(11):1024–1036. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ring D, Jupiter JB, Gan BS, Israeli R, Yaremchuk MJ. Infected nonunion of the tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:302–311. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199912000-00032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rohilla R, Wadhwani J, Devgan A, Singh R, Khanna M. Prospective randomised comparison of ring versus rail fixator in infected gap nonunion of tibia treated with distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint J. 2016;98(B10):1399–1405. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.37946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Aktuglu K, Erol K, Vahabi A. Ilizarov bone transport and treatment of critical-sized tibial bone defects: a narrative review. J Orthop Traumatol. 2019;20(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s10195-019-0527-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bezstarosti H, Metsemakers WJ, van Lieshout E, Voskamp LW, Kortram K, McNally MA, Marais LC, Verhofstad M. Management of critical-sized bone defects in the treatment of fracture-related infection: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(7):1215–1230. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03525-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Borzunov DY. Long bone reconstruction using multilevel lengthening of bone defect fragments. Int Orthop. 2012;36(8):1695–1700. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1562-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Li Y, Shen S, Xiao Q, Wang G, Yang H, Zhao H, Shu B, Zhuo N. Efficacy comparison of double-level and single-level bone transport with orthofix fixator for treatment of tibia fracture with massive bone defects. Int Orthop. 2020;44(5):957–963. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04503-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Catagni MA, Azzam W, Guerreschi F, Lovisetti L, Poli P, Khan MS, Di Giacomo LM. Trifocal versus bifocal bone transport in treatment of long segmental tibial bone defects. Bone Joint J. 2019;101(B2):162–169. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B2.BJJ-2018-0340.R2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Liu Y, Yushan M, Liu Z, Liu J, Ma C, Yusufu A. Complications of bone transport technique using the Ilizarov method in the lower extremity: a retrospective analysis of 282 consecutive cases over 10 years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03335-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Yushan M, Ren P, Abula A, Alike Y, Abulaiti A, Ma C, Yusufu A. Bifocal or trifocal (double-level) bone transport using unilateral rail system in the treatment of large tibial defects caused by infection: a retrospective study. Orthop Surg. 2020;12(1):184–193. doi: 10.1111/os.12604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Abulaiti A, Liu Y, Cai F, Liu K, Abula A, Maimaiti X, Ren P, Yusufu A. Bone defects in tibia managed by the bifocal vs. trifocal bone transport technique: a retrospective comparative study. Front Surg. 2022 doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.858240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–716. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Szelerski A, Pajchert Kozłowska A, Żarek S, Górski R, Mochocki K, Dejnek M, Urbański W, Reichert P, Morasiewicz P. A new criterion for assessing Ilizarov treatment outcomes in nonunion of the tibia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(5):879–889. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03571-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Yushan M, Abulaiti A, Maimaiti X, Hamiti Y, Yusufu A. Tetrafocal (three osteotomies) and pentafocal (four osteotomies) bone transport using Ilizarov technique in the treatment of distal tibial defect—preliminary outcomes of 12 cases and a description of the surgical technique. Injury. 2022;53(8):2880–2887. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;250:81–104. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199001000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Robert RS, Weitzman AM, Tracey WJ, Freudigman P, Katz HV, Ilizarov S. Simultaneous treatment of tibial bone and soft-tissue defects with the Ilizarov method. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(3):197–205. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200603000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Borzunov DY, Chevardin AV. Ilizarov non-free bone plasty for extensive tibial defects. Int Orthop. 2013;37(4):709–714. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1799-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to restrictions on ethical approvals involving patient data and anonymity but can be obtained from the corresponding author as reasonably required.