• Injury · Dec 2022

    Review

    Definitive Taylor Spatial Frame management for the treatment of high-energy open tibial fractures: Clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

    • A Tucker, A R Norrish, S Fendius, C Uzoho, T Thorne, E Del Hoyo, J Nightingale, A Taylor, and B J Ollivere.
    • Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals Trust, Nottingham UK.
    • Injury. 2022 Dec 1; 53 (12): 410441134104-4113.

    BackgroundHigh energy open tibial fractures are complex injuries with no consensus on the optimal method of fixation. Treatment outcomes are often reported with union and re-operation rates, often without specific definitions being provided.  We sought to describe union, reoperation rates, and patient reported outcomes, using the validated EQ-VAS and Disability Rating Index (DRI) scores, following stabilisation with a Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) and a combined orthoplastic approach for the management of soft tissues. A literature review is also provided.MethodA prospective cross-sectional follow up of open tibial fractures, treated at a level 1 major trauma centre, managed with a TSF using a one ring per segment technique between January 2014 and December 2019 were identified. Demographic, injury and operative data were recorded, along with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) scores, specifically the EQ-VAS and Disability Rating Index (DRI). Union rates, defined by radiographic union scale in tibia (RUST) scores, and re-operation rates were recorded. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed, with a p<0.05 considered statistically significant.ResultsOverall, 51 patients were included. Mean age was 51.2 ± 17.4 years, with a 4:1 male preponderance. Diaphyseal and distal fractures accounted for 76% of cases. Mean time in frame was 206.7 ± 149.4 days. Union was defined and was achieved in 41/51 (80.4%) patients. Deep infection occurred in 6/51 (11.8%) patients. Amputation was performed in 1 case (1.9%). Overall re-operation rate was 33%. Time to union were significantly longer if re-operation was required for any reason (uncomplicated 204±189 vs complicated 304±155 days; p = 0.0017) . EQ-VAS and DRI scores significantly deteriorated at 1 year follow-up (EQVAS 87.5 ± 11.7 vs 66.5 ± 20.4;p<0.0001 and DRI 11.9 ± 17.8 vs 39.3 ± 23.3;p<0.0001). At 1 year post op, 23/51(45.1%) required a walking aid, and 17/29 (58.6%) of those working pre-injury had returned to work.ConclusionOpen tibial fracture have significant morbidity and long recovery periods as determined by EQVAS and DRI outcome measures.  We report the largest series of open tibial feature treated primarily with a TSF construct, which has similar outcomes to other techniques, and should therefore be considered as a useful technique for managing these injuries.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.