A Comparative Study of Taylor Spatial Frame and Monolateral External Fixator for Treating Infected Tibial Defects With Concomitant Soft Tissue Loss

Abstract

Objective: The management of infectious tibial defects with concomitant soft tissue loss (ITD-STL) continues to pose substantial clinical challenges in orthopedic practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) versus the Monolateral External Fixator (MEF) in achieving bone and soft tissue reconstruction for ITD-STL.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed on 49 consecutive patients with ITD-STL admitted between July 2010 and September 2022. The dataset included 25 patients who received treatment with the TSF, whereas 24 patients underwent treatment with the MEF. Demographic information, wound healing time, bone healing index, external fixation index, cost of hospitalization, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Bone healing and functional recovery were assessed at the last follow-up (mean 18.8 months postoperatively; range 12–24 months) using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov criteria (ASAMI) score. Then, statistical analysis such as independent samples t tests or chi-Square test was performed.

Results: The wound healing time was (89.5 ± 30.6 days) in the TSF group and (86.2 ± 31.8 days) in the MEF group (p > 0.05). The bone healing index was (45.49 ± 11.99 d/cm) in the TSF group and (48.20 ± 13.01 d/cm) in the MEF group (p > 0.05). The external fixation index of the TSF group (52.4 ± 7.2 d/cm) was significantly lower than the MEF group (58.6 ± 10.3 d/cm) (p < 0.05). The total hospitalization cost was significantly higher in the TSF group compared to the MEF group (67.16 ± 2.46 thousand RMB vs. 42.67 ± 2.35 thousand RMB; p < 0.05). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the TSF group (56%) than in the MEF group (75%). At the final follow-up, no significant differences in the ASAMI scores were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: The use of TSF and MEF for ITD-STL can achieve bone reconstruction and soft tissue repair via bone transport, yielding a positive therapeutic effect. However, TSF treatment is a superior method, characterized by better biomechanical properties and fewer complications, particularly in the correction of postoperative tibial axial deviation. However, these benefits might be offset by the economic costs they could entail.

Keywords

monolateral external fixator / soft tissue defect / Taylor spatial frame / tibial defect

References

[1] W. Chen, H. Lv, S. Liu, et al., “National Incidence of Traumatic Fractures in China: A Retrospective Survey of 512 187 Individuals,” Lancet Global Health 5, no. 8 (2017): e807-e817.

[2] A. Abula, M. Yushan, P. Ren, A. Abulaiti, C. Ma, and A. Yusufu, “Reconstruction of Soft Tissue Defects and Bone Loss in the Tibia by Flap Transfer and Bone Transport by Distraction Osteogenesis: Acase Series and Our Experience,” Annals of Plastic Surgery 84, no. 5S (2020): S202-S207.

[3] D. Jeremic, N. Grubor, Z. Bascarevic, et al., “Comparative Analysis of Complication Rates in Tibial Shaft Fractures: Intramedullary Nail vs. Ilizarov External Fixation Method,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 7 (2024): 2034, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13072034.

[4] M. R. Garner, S. J. Warner, J. A. Heiner, Y. T. Kim, and J. Agel, “Evaluation of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Open Fracture Classification (OTA-OFC) as an Outcome Prediction Tool in Open Tibial Shaft Fractures,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 142, no. 12 (2021): 3599-3603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03954-5.

[5] A. Upfill-Brown, R. Hwang, S. Clarkson, et al., “Rates and Timing of Short-Term Complications Following Operative Treatment of Tibial Shaft Fractures,” OTA International 4, no. 4 (2021): e158.

[6] A. Nauth, M. McKee, T. Einhorn, J. Watson, R. Li, and E. Schemitsch, “Managing Bone Defects,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 25, no. 8 (2011): 462-466.

[7] N. Zpolat, M. Tunez, A. Reisolu, H. Akan, and C. Kazimolu, “Management of Tibial Nonunions With Masquelet Technique After Failed Previous Treatment Options for Grade III Open Fractures,” Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 28, no. 8 (2022): 1180-1185.

[8] C. Cibura, C. Ull, T. Rosteius, et al., “The Use of the Ilizarov Fixator for the Treatment of Open and Closed Tibial Shaft and Distal Tibial Fractures in Patients With Complex Cases,” Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie 162, no. 2 (2022): 166-178.

[9] G. Hosny, M. Singer, M. Hussein, and M. Meselhy, “Refracture After Ilizarov Fixation of Infected Ununited Tibial Fractures-An Analysis of Eight Hundred and Twelve Cases,” International Orthopaedics 45, no. 8 (2021): 2141-2147.

[10] F. Miraj, A. Nugroho, I. M. Dalitan, and M. Setyarani, “The Efficacy of Ilizarov Method for Management of Long Tibial Bone and Soft Tissue Defect,” Annals of Medicine and Surgery 68 (2021): 102645.

[11] Z. Cao, Y. Zhang, K. Lipa, L. Qing, P. Wu, and J. Tang, “Ilizarov Bone Transfer for Treatment of Large Tibial Bone Defects: Clinical Results and Management of Complications,” Journal of Personalized Medicine 12, no. 11 (2022): 1774.

[12] B. Shi, Z. Zhang, G. Ji, C. Cai, H. Shu, and X. Ma, “Bone Transport for Large Segmental Tibial Defects Using Taylor Spatial Frame Versus the Ilizarov Circular Fixator,” Orthopaedic Surgery 16, no. 9 (2024): 2157-2166, https://doi.org/10.1111/os.14192.

[13] A. K. Saleh, N. M. Yusof, A. A. Attallah, et al., “Ilizarov External Fixator Versus Orthofix LRS in Management of Femoral Osteomyelitis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis,” Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 58, no. 9 (2024): 1272-1277, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-024-01208-1.

[14] K. Liu, Q. Jia, X. Wang, et al., “Complications Associated With Single-Level Bone Transport for the Treatment of Tibial Bone Defects Caused by Fracture-Related Infection,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 24, no. 1 (2023): 514, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06527-2.

[15] D. Gulabi, M. Erdem, G. S. Cecen, C. C. Avci, N. Saglam, and F. Saglam, “Ilizarov Fixator Combined With an Intramedullary Nail for Tibial Nonunions With Bone Loss: Is It Effective?,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 472, no. 12 (2014): 3892-3901.

[16] D. Paley, “Problems, Obstacles, and Complications of Limb Lengthening by the Ilizarov Technique,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 250 (1990): 81-104.

[17] J. Hogg, M. Hampton, and S. Madan, “Supra Tubercular Tibial Osteotomy and Gradual Correction With Taylor Spatial Frame for the Management of Torsional Malalignment Syndrome-Surgical Technique and Outcomes,” Knee 40 (2023): 8-15.

[18] G. Russell, “In Acute Closed Tibial Shaft Fractures, Surgery With the Taylor Spatial Frame Versus Reamed Intramedullary Nailing Did Not Differ for Quality of Life or Pain at 2 Years,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 103, no. 16 (2021): 1554.

[19] J. Messner, H. Chhina, S. Davidson, J. Abad, and A. Cooper, “Clinical Outcomes in Pediatric Tibial Lengthening and Deformity Correction: A Comparison of the Taylorspatial Frame With the Orthex Hexapod System,” Journal of Child Orthopaedics 15, no. 2 (2021): 114-121.

[20] R. Bhardwaj, J. Singh, R. Kapila, and R. S. Boparai, “Comparision of Ilizarov Ring Fixator and Rail Fixator in Infected Nonunion of Long Bones: Aretrospective Followup Study,” Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 53, no. 1 (2019): 82-88.

[21] A. Tucker, A. Norrish, S. Fendius, et al., “Definitive Taylor Spatial Frame Management for the Treatment of High-Energy Open Tibial Fractures: Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes,” Injury 53, no. 12 (2022): 4104-4113.

[22] M. Yushan, A. Abulaiti, X. Maimaiti, Y. Hamiti, and A. Yusufu, “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 53, no. 8 (2022): 2880-2887.

[23] E. Drampalos, H. Mohammad, and A. Pillai, “Augmented Debridement for Implant Related Chronic Osteomyelitis With an Absorbable, Gentamycin Loaded Calcium Sulfate/Hydroxyapatite Biocomposite,” Journal of Orthopaedics 17 (2020): 173-179.

[24] R. Howlin, M. Brayford, J. Webb, J. Cooper, S. Aiken, and P. Stoodley, “Antibiotic-Loaded Synthetic Calcium Sulfate Beads for Prevention of Bacterial Colonization and Biofilm Formation in Periprosthetic Infections,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 59, no. 1 (2015): 111-120.

[25] S. McConoughey, R. Howlin, J. Wiseman, P. Stoodley, and J. Calhoun, “Comparing PMMA and Calcium Sulfate as Carriers for the Local Delivery of Antibiotics to Infected Surgical Sites,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials 103, no. 4 (2015): 870-877.

[26] S. S. Aiken, J. J. Cooper, H. Florance, M. T. Robinson, and S. Michell, “Local Release of Antibiotics for Surgical Site Infection Management Using High-Purity Calcium Sulfate: An In Vitro Elution Study,” Surgical Infections 16, no. 1 (2015): 54-61.

[27] J. Yang, Z. Wang, L. Jiang, L. Tang, Z. Li, and Y. Liu, “Nomogram Construction and Validation of Axial Deviation in Patients With Tibial Defects Treated With the Ilizarov Bone Transport Technique,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 25, no. 1 (2024): 483.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.