The Clinical Application of Double Taylor Spatial Frame in Segmental Tibial Fracture

Abstract

Objectives: Multi-planar external fixation has been used for the management of segmental tibial fractures with severe soft tissue injuries. However, fewer specialized studies have been reported. The primary aim of this study was to describe our experience of treating fractures of this type using the Taylor Spatial Frame and Ilizarov external fixation methods.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 33 patients with segmental tibial fracture treated at our institution between January 2016 and December 2020. The patients were divided into double Taylor Spatial Frame (D-TSF) and Ilizarov groups based on the external fixation structure. Baseline demographic data included sex, age, injury side and cause, open or closed fracture, time from injury to surgery, complications, and external frame removal and fracture healing time. The hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA) was measured from preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final follow-up full-length X-rays of bilateral lower limbs. We determined the degree of deviation in the HKA by calculating the difference between the measured angle and the ideal value of 180°; the absolute value was used to assess recovery of the lower limb force line. At the final follow-up, Johner–Wruhs tibial fracture outcome criteria (J-W TFOC) were used to classify the postoperative function of the affected limb as excellent, good, moderate, or poor. Count data were analyzed with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test; the Mann–Whitney U test was used for rank data.

Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of sex, age, side of injury, cause of injury, closed or open fracture, or time between injury and surgery, which indicates that the groups were comparable (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference was observed in external frame removal and fracture healing time between the D-TSF and Ilizarov groups (36.24 ± 8.34 vs 45.42 ± 10.21 weeks, p = 0.009; 33.33 ± 8.21 vs 42.00 ± 9.78 weeks, p = 0.011). The Johner–Wruhs criteria were used to assess the function of the affected limb, the D-TSF group performed better in correcting the lower limb force line than the Ilizarov group. A statistically significant difference in terms of excellent ratings was observed between the two groups (18/2/1/0 vs 5/5/1/1, p = 0.010). Postoperative follow-up X-rays demonstrated a significant improvement in the HKA in both groups immediately after surgery and at the final follow-up compared to the angle before surgery. At the final follow-up, a statistically significant difference was observed in the degree of deviation in the HKA between the two groups (1.58° ± 0.84° vs 2.37° ± 1.00°, p = 0.023).

Conclusion: The D-TSF treatment is associated with minimal secondary damage to soft tissue, a straightforward and minimally invasive procedure, multiplanar stable fracture fixation, and optimization of fracture alignment and lower limb force lines, therefore, it is highly effective therapeutic option for segmental tibial fracture.

Keywords

External fixation / Hip–knee–ankle angle / Johner–Wruhs tibial fracture outcome criteria / Segmental tibial fracture / Taylor Spatial Frame

References

[1] TeraaM, Blokhuis TJ, TangL, LeenenLPH. Segmental tibial fractures: an infrequent but demanding injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(9):2790–2796.

[2] MeinbergEG, AgelJ, RobertsCS, Karam MD, KellamJF. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium-2018. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(suppl 1):S1–S170.

[3] McMahonSE, LittleZE, SmithTO, Trompeter A, HingCB. The management of segmental tibial shaft fractures:a systematic review. Injury. 2016;47(3):568–573.

[4] Court-BrownCM, BuglerKE, ClementND, Duckworth AD, McQueenMM. The epidemiology of open fractures in adults. A 15-year review. Injury. 2012;43:891–897.

[5] ZelleBA, DangKH, OrnellSS. High-energy tibial pilon fractures:an instructional review. Int Orthop. 2019;43(8):1939–1950.

[6] HingCB, TuttonE, SmithTO, Glaze M, StokesJR, CookJ, et al. Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures(STIFF-F):a mixed methods feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7(1):93.

[7] GiannoudisPV, Hinsche AF, CohenA, MacdonaldDA, Matthews SJ, SmithRM. Segmental tibial fractures: an assessment of procedures in 27 cases. Injury. 2003;34:756–762.

[8] GiotakisN, Panchani SK, NarayanB, LarkinJJ, Al Maskari S, NayagamS. Segmental fractures of the tibia treated by circular external fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:687–692.

[9] HundalRS, WeickJ, HakeM. Management of open segmental tibial fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2021;35(suppl 2):S50–S51.

[10] SohnHS, ChungJY, SongHK. Analysis of complications and clinical outcomes in the treatment of segmental tibial fractures according to the method of internal fixation. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(7):740–745.

[11] AhrendMD, FingerF, GrünwaldL, GrünwaldL, KellerG, BaumgartnerH, et al. Improving the accuracy of patient positioning for long-leg radiographs using a Taylor spatial frame mounted rotation rod. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;3(2):823–825.

[12] Al-SayyadMJ. Taylor spatial frame in the treatment of open tibial shaft fractures. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42(4):431–438.

[13] GustiloRB, Gruninger RP, DavisT. Classification of type III(severe) open fractures relative to treatment and results. Orthopedics. 1987;10:1781–1788.

[14] AarnesGT, SteenT, LudvigsenP, Waanders NA, HuiskesR, GoldsteinSA, et al. In vivo assessment of regenerate axial stiffness in distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res. 2005;23(2):494–498.

[15] McDanielG, Mitchell KL, CharlesC, KrausVB. A comparison of five approaches to measurement of anatomic knee alignment from radiographs. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18(2):273–277.

[16] LiuZ, WanCU, XuWG, GaoG, ZhouP, Chu D, et al. Comparison of two external fixators for open tibial shaft fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;31(12):1057–1062.

[17] LiuY, LiH, LiuJ, ZhangX, YushanM, Liu Z, et al. Long bone fracture reduction and deformity correction using the hexapod external fixator with a new method: a feasible study and preliminary results. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):221.

[18] AlsayyadMJ. Use of Taylor spatial frame in the treatment of tibia fractures in the pediatric and adolescent patient. J Pediatr Orthop. 2006;26:164–170.

[19] TuckerA, Norrish AR, FendiusS, UzohoC, ThorneT, del HoyoE, et al. Definitive Taylor spatial frame management for the treatment of high-energy open tibial fractures: clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Injury. 2022;53(12):4104–4113.

[20] WattsA, Sadekar V, MoulderE, SouroullasP, Hadland Y, BarronE, et al. A comparative evaluation of the time to frame removal for tibia fractures treated with hexapod and Ilizarov circular frames. Injury. 2023;54(3):996–1003.

[21] PatelKH, LoganK, KrkovicM. Strategies and outcomes in severe open tibial shaft fractures at a major trauma center: a large retrospective case-series. World J Orthop. 2021;12(7):495–504.

[22] O'NeillBJ, FoxCM, MolloyAP, O'hEireamhoin S, MooreDP. The use of circular external fixators in the management of lower limb trauma in Dublin: a single surgeon's 20-year experience. Ir J Med Sci. 2016;185(1):133–138.

[23] MenakayaCU, RigbyAS, HadlandY, Barron E, SharmaH. Fracture healing following high energy tibial trauma: Ilizarov versus Taylor spatial frame. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96(2):106–110.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.