• Michail Beltsios, Andreas F Mavrogenis, Olga D Savvidou, Eirineos Karamanis, Zinon T Kokkalis, and Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos.
• Department of Orthopaedics, Thriasion Hospital, Elefsis, Greece.
• Eur J Orthop Surg Tr. 2014 Jul 1; 24 (5): 821-8.

PurposeTo compare modular monolateral external fixators with single monolateral external fixators for the treatment of open and complex tibial shaft fractures, to determine the optimal construct for fracture union.Materials And MethodsA total of 223 tibial shaft fractures in 212 patients were treated with a monolateral external fixator from 2005 to 2011; 112 fractures were treated with a modular external fixator with ball-joints (group A), and 111 fractures were treated with a single external fixator without ball-joints (group B). The mean follow-up was 2.9 years. We retrospectively evaluated the operative time for fracture reduction with the external fixator, pain and range of motion of the knee and ankle joints, time to union, rate of malunion, reoperations and revisions of the external fixators, and complications.ResultsThe time for fracture reduction was statistically higher in group B; the rate of union was statistically higher in group B; the rate of nonunion was statistically higher in group A; the mean time to union was statistically higher in group A; the rate of reoperations was statistically higher in group A; and the rate of revision of the external fixator was statistically higher in group A. Pain, range of motion of the knee and ankle joints, rates of delayed union, malunion and complications were similar.ConclusionAlthough modular external fixators are associated with faster intraoperative fracture reduction with the external fixator, single external fixators are associated with significantly better rates of union and reoperations; the rates of delayed union, malunion and complications are similar.

39 keywords...

hide…