Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 84-B, Issue SUPP_III, 219.  
Copyright © 2002 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maini, L.
Right arrow Articles by Dhaon, B.K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Maini, L.
Right arrow Articles by Dhaon, B.K.

Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association: TUESDAY


Adelaide – April 2001

President – Professor Robert Bauze


TREATMENT OF INFECTED NONUNIONS BY ILIZAROV TECHNIQUE

L. Maini; and B.K. Dhaon

Orthopaedic Surgeon, 22,Samachar Appartment, Mayur Vihar Phase – I, Delhi ii0091 India

Thirty patients of infected nonunion of long bones were treated with radical resection of the necrotic bone and bone transport or compression/distraction osteosynthesis. Nonunion, infection, deformity, bone gap and shortening were all addressed simultaneously using the Ilizarov principles. There were 15 cases with bone loss ranging from 4 to 12cm (median bone gap of 7 cm), 10 cases of stiff non-union (6 of which had an associated deformity) and 5 cases of mobile non-union. The median time in Ilizarov frame was 150 days. Median follow up after frame removal was 33.5 months. Bone grafting at docking site was required in only 3 cases(10%). There were 3 cases of refracture(10%) and 3 cases of recurrence of infection (10%). The bone result was excellent in 21 patients (70%), good in 3(10%), fair in none (0%) and poor in 6 (20%). The functional results were excellent in 8 patients (26.7%), good in 12 (40%), fair in3 (10%) and poor in 7 (23.3%). It is difficult to precisely define the indications for preservation and reconstruction of severe injuries. The surgical team has to appreciate the length, disability, complications and cost of treatment. Patients must be aware of the limitations of functional results and the possible difficulty of return to work despite the reconstructive attempt.

The abstracts were prepared by Professor Jegan Krishnan. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park 5047, Australia.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General