Treatment of Infected Tibial Metaphyseal Nonunions Using the Ilizarov Method: Protocol for a Prospective Nonrandomized Study

Background The management of infected metaphyseal nonunion of the tibia is devastating, especially when associated with significant bone loss, poor soft tissues, draining sinuses, axial deformity, knee or ankle joint stiffness, limb discrepancy, and multiresisted pathogens. A systematic review, performed recently by the primary investigators but not yet published, yielded the lack of studies in the field and the huge heterogeneity of the presented results. We found several bias and controversies such as no clear definition of the exact part of the tibia where the nonunion was located, the pathogen causing the fracture-related infection, the number of previous interventions and time to presentation, and the exact type of treatment methods including the use of muscle flaps or bone grafting. Time to final union as a functional score is another important but missing data. Objective The proposed study is designed to evaluate a sufficient number of patients with infected metaphyseal tibial nonunions using various general health, functional, and bone scores. Methods This prospective clinical trial study, with a minimum follow-up period of 36 months, focuses on the effectiveness of the Ilizarov method after radical nonunion debridement and targeted antibiotic therapy in patients with infected metaphyseal tibial nonunions. The primary outcomes would be the definite healing of nonunion and infection-free results. Secondary outcomes would be limb alignment and discrepancy, alteration in the patient’s quality of life, and functional results. A power analysis calculated a minimum of 11 patients to obtain statistical power, but we aim to include at least 25 patients. Limb discrepancy, clinical validation of infection eradication and fracture healing, radiographic validation, and patient-reported outcome measures will be highlighted and correlated. Statistical analysis of the results will offer data missing from the literature so far. Measurements are scheduled at specific times for each patient: preoperatively, 3 and 6 months postoperatively, 1 month after Ilizarov frame removal, and once per semester afterward until the end of the follow-up period (minimum 36 months). Laboratory evaluation will be assessed once per month. Any complication will be reported and treated when it occurs. Results The trial has already started. It was funded in June 2020. As of May 2022, 19 participants have been recruited and no major complications have been noticed yet. Data analysis will be performed after data collection ends, and results will be published afterward. Conclusions An infected metaphyseal tibial nonunion is a rare condition with limited treatment options and many controversies. There is no consensus in the literature about the best treatment strategy, and this lack of evidence should be fulfilled. Trial Registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 30905788; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN30905788 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/39319

[1]  Yong-Cheol Yoon,et al.  Early definitive internal fixation for infected nonunion of the lower limb , 2021, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.

[2]  A. Metcalfe,et al.  The economic burden of open tibia fractures: A systematic review. , 2021, Injury.

[3]  L. Yin,et al.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Combined Antibiotic Spacer with Ilizarov Methods in the Treatment of Infected Nonunion of Tibia , 2021, BioMed research international.

[4]  A Machine Learning Algorithm to Identify Patients with Tibial Shaft Fractures at Risk for Infection After Operative Treatment. , 2020, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  G. Kerkhoffs,et al.  Plate vs. nail for extra-articular distal tibia fractures: How should we personalize surgical treatment? A meta-analysis of 1332 patients. , 2020, Injury.

[6]  Liangman Li,et al.  Prevalence and influencing factors of nonunion in patients with tibial fracture: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2020, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.

[7]  V. Pavone,et al.  Treatment of Infected Tibial Non-Unions with Ilizarov Technique: A Case Series , 2020, Journal of clinical medicine.

[8]  G. Kerkhoffs,et al.  Complications and subsequent surgery after intra-medullary nailing for tibial shaft fractures: Review of 8110 patients. , 2020, Injury.

[9]  M. Verhofstad,et al.  Diagnosing Fracture-Related Infection: Current Concepts and Recommendations , 2019, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[10]  G. Cardoso,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of the Behaviour at the Metaphyseal–Diaphyseal Junction of Complex Tibial Plateau Fractures Using Two Circular Fixator Configurations , 2020, Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction.

[11]  M. Kalem,et al.  Ilizarov segmental bone transport of infected tibial nonunions requiring extensive debridement with an average distraction length of 9,5 centimetres. Is it safe? , 2019, Injury.

[12]  R. Rohilla,et al.  Prospective randomized comparison of quality of regenerate in distraction osteogenesis of ring versus monolateral fixator in patients with infected nonunion of the tibia using digital radiographs and CT. , 2019, The bone & joint journal.

[13]  W. Swanson,et al.  Infection-free rates and Sequelae predict factors in bone transportation for infected tibia: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[14]  O. Bajolet,et al.  Management of septic non-union of the tibia by the induced membrane technique. What factors could improve results? , 2018, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[15]  R. G. Richards,et al.  Fracture-related infection: A consensus on definition from an international expert group. , 2017, Injury.

[16]  M. McNally,et al.  Ilizarov Treatment Protocols in the Management of Infected Nonunion of the Tibia , 2017, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[17]  S. Chhatre,et al.  Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life-a systematic review. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  J. Lindahl,et al.  Risk Factors for Deep Infection Following Plate Fixation of Proximal Tibial Fractures. , 2016, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  H. Balci,et al.  Treatment of infected nonunion of the juxta-articular region of the distal tibia. , 2016, Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica.

[20]  Z. Mao,et al.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Ilizarov Methods in the Treatment of Infected Nonunion of Tibia and Femur , 2015, PloS one.

[21]  D. P. O'connor,et al.  Time Trade-Off as a Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life: Long Bone Nonunions Have a Devastating Impact. , 2015, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  S. Nijs,et al.  Individual risk factors for deep infection and compromised fracture healing after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures: a single centre experience of 480 patients. , 2015, Injury.

[23]  Hamish Simpson,et al.  Delayed union and nonunions: epidemiology, clinical issues, and financial aspects. , 2014, Injury.

[24]  C. Gudex,et al.  From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[25]  D. O'connor,et al.  The devastating effects of tibial nonunion on health-related quality of life. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[26]  E. Kapreli,et al.  Cross-cultural adaptation of the Greek version of the Knee Outcome Survey--activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS). , 2011, The Knee.

[27]  D. P. O'connor,et al.  Outcomes of Tibial Nonunion in Older Adults Following Treatment Using the Ilizarov Method , 2007, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[28]  Nick Kontodimopoulos,et al.  Validity of SF-12 summary scores in a Greek general population , 2007, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[29]  John E. Brazier,et al.  Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[30]  J. Mader,et al.  A Clinical Staging System for Adult Osteomyelitis , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[31]  D. A. Cioffi,et al.  The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Outcomes Instruments: Normative Values from the General Population , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[32]  J. Nunley,et al.  Clinical Rating Systems for the Ankle-Hindfoot, Midfoot, Hallux, and Lesser Toes , 1994, Foot & ankle international.

[33]  D. Paley,et al.  Ilizarov treatment of tibial nonunions with bone loss. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.