Ankle arthrodesis using the Taylor Spatial Frame for the treatment of infection, extruded talus and complex pilon fractures

Injury ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1028-1037
Author(s):  
Alejandro Ordas-Bayon ◽  
Karl Logan ◽  
Parag Garg ◽  
Fidel Peat ◽  
Matija Krkovic
2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 821-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Shore ◽  
Jon-Paul P. DiMauro ◽  
David D. Spence ◽  
Patricia E. Miller ◽  
Michael P. Glotzbecker ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanshi Liu ◽  
Jialin Liu ◽  
Maimaiaili Yushan ◽  
Zhenhui Liu ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The Taylor spatial frame (TSF) is increasingly used for acute tibial shaft fracture care as more general orthopedic surgeons are gaining expertise of this versatile device. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the TSF for fracture reduction and definitive management in patients with acute tibial shaft fractures.Methods: The study was conducted on 34 patients with acute tibial shaft fractures who were admitted or referred to our institution and consented to TSF treatment from Jan 2016 to June 2019, including 27males and 7 females with a mean age of 39 years (range 18 to 65 years). Patients' clinical and radiological data, and the final clinical outcomes at a minimum of 12 months follow-up were collected and retrospectively analyzed. All complications were documented according to Paley’s classification. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov criteria (ASAMI) at the last clinical visit.Results: All patients remained in the TSF for a mean of 26 weeks (range 15 to 52 weeks) and acquired complete bone union. The satisfactory alignment was achieved in all patients, and all the patients were able to perform daily activities with no difficulty at the last clinical visit. Complications included pin tract infection (44%), delayed union (6%), nonunion (3%), and joint stiffness (3%). The ASAMI bony result was excellent in 31 patients and good in 3. The ASAMI functional result was excellent in 27 patients, good in 6, and fair in 1. Conclusions: Fracture reduction and definitive management using the Taylor spatial frame is an alternative and effective method for acute tibial shaft fractures, including technical advantages of early trauma-control, ease of soft tissue care, the versatility of achieving excellent alignment, and the continuity of device until bone union.


2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-78
Author(s):  
Lutf A. Abumunaser ◽  
Mohammed J. Alsayyed

Congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia remains one of the most difficult conditions in pediatric orthopedic surgery. The numerous treatment options reflect this difficulty. The aim of successful treatment is to achieve union, length and deformity correction. This reports a 16-years-old male patient with congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia diagnosed at age of two years, who previously underwent 14 different operations. The patient was referred to King Abdulaziz University Hospital, where he was treated with Taylor Spatial Frame, excision of pseudarthrosis, autogenus bone grafts and Demineralized Bone Matrix was performed, and union was achieved. Stability and deformity correction permitted by Taylor Spatial Frame, in addition to stimulation of bone healing through proper grafting provided a successful option to treat this complex condition.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yash Paul Chaudhry ◽  
Efstratios Papadelis ◽  
Hunter Hayes ◽  
Philip F. Stahel ◽  
Erik A. Hasenboehler

Abstract Background: Comminuted intra-articular tibial pilon fractures can be challenging to manage, with high revision rates and poor functional outcomes. This study reviewed (1) treatment, complications, and clinical outcomes in studies of complex comminuted tibial pilon fractures (type AO43-C3); and (2) primary ankle arthrodesis as a management option for these types of complex injuries.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed from 1990-2020 to determine complications and outcomes after staged fracture fixation and primary ankle joint arthrodesis for comminuted C3-type tibial pilon fractures.The search was conducted in compliance with the PRISMA guidelines, using the following MeSH terms: “tibial pilon”/“pilon fracture”/“plafond fracture”/“distal tibial”/“43-C3”/“ankle fracture”/“ankle fusion”/“primary ankle arthrodesis”/“pilon fracture staged”/“pilon external fixation” and “pilon open reduction internal fixation.” Inclusion criteria were restricted to original articles in English language on adult patients ≥18 years of age. Eligibility criteria for retrieved publications were determined using a “PICO” approach (population, intervention/exposure, comparison, outcomes). Weighted analysis was used to compare treatment groups on time to definitive treatment, follow-up time, range of motion, fracture classification, and complications.Results: The systematic literature review using the defined MeSH terms yielded 72 original articles. Of these, 13 articles met the eligibility criteria based on the PICO statements, of which 8 publications investigated the outcomes of a staged fixation approach in 308 cumulative patients, and 5 articles focused on primary ankle arthrodesis in 69 cumulative patients. For staged treatment, the mean wound complication rate was 14.6%, and the malunion/nonunion rate was 9.9%. For primary arthrodesis, the mean wound complication rate was 2.9%, and the malunion/nonunion rate was 2.9%. After risk stratification for fracture type and severity, the small cumulative cohort of patients included in the primary arthrodesis publications did not provide sufficient power to determine a clinically relevant difference in complications and long-term patient outcomes compared to the staged surgical fixation group.Conclusions: At present, there is insufficient evidence in the published literature to provide guidance towards consideration of ankle arthrodesis for complex comminuted C3-type tibial pilon fractures, compared to the standard treatment by staged surgical fracture fixation.


2009 ◽  
Vol 147 (01) ◽  
pp. 26-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Seybold ◽  
J. Geßmann ◽  
L. Özokyay ◽  
H. Bäcker ◽  
G. Muhr ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document