• S M Esmaeilnejad Ganji, M Bahrami, and F Joukar.
• Department of Orthopedics, Shahid Beheshti Hospital, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
• Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2011 Dec 1; 13 (12): 868-72.

BackgroundIn developing countries, Ilizarov or AO external fixator is usually used for treatment of tibial open fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of these two methods for treatment of tibial open fractures.MethodsFrom April 2002 to April 2010, 120 patients with open tibial fractures admitted to the Department of Orthopedics of Babol University of Medical Sciences entered this study. In each arm, 60 subjects randomly received Ilizarov or AO external fixator. All patients were followed at least for one year. These two groups were compared regarding non-union, malunion and cure rates.ResultsThe mean age of the patients in Ilizarov group was 32.35±11.28 and for AO were 31.3±10.99 years. Mean time for union in Ilizarov group was 5.25±1.85 and for AO external fixator was 5.85±2.13 months. Nonunion rate in Ilizarov group was 10% and for AO external fixator was 11.7%. Malunion rate in Ilizarov group was 10% and for AO external fixator was 18.3%. Totally, efficacy of treatment in the Ilizarov group was 81.7% and in AO external fixator was 65%.ConclusionThe efficacy of treatment in Ilizarov was higher than that AO external fixator in treatment of open tibial fractures.

4 keywords...

hide…