Ilizarov Lower Limb Lengthening - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 10
About This Presentation
Title:

Ilizarov Lower Limb Lengthening

Description:

In 13 years(1991-2004) the lower. limb lengthenings were studied: ... No group therapy, no formal physiotherapy. Complications :equal or less than literature ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:485
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 11
Provided by: eposE
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Ilizarov Lower Limb Lengthening


1
Ilizarov Lower Limb Lengthening
Functional outcome
  • G. H. Shahcheraghi MD FRCS(C)
  • Mahzad Javid MD
  • Orthop.Surgeon
  • Fatemeh Hadavi MD.
  • Orthop. Surgeon
  • Nemazee Hospital..Shiraz Medical
  • University-Shiraz Iran

2
Material
  • In 13 years(1991-2004) the lower
  • limb lengthenings were studied
  • Single surgeons experience
  • (GHS)
  • Recall of 68 ?56, showed up
  • (83.2 follow-up)
  • 61 lower limb segments in 56
  • patients
  • Bifocal lengthening 11

3
Material
  • Cause of LLD- 5 groups
  • Congenital bone deficiencies
  • 17 (30.3)
  • Paralytic post polio 11 (19.6)
  • Post traumatic, physeal injury
  • 11 (19.6)
  • Post infection 8 (14.3)
  • Miscellaneous 9 (16.2)
  • (OI, pseudoarthrosis tibia, myelomeningocel,
    DDH, bone dysplasia, Ollier disease)

4
Evaluation
  • Physical exam
  • Functional out come Questionnaire
  • SMFA
  • SF36
  • WOMAC
  • MACTAR
  • parents and patients satisfaction
    scale
  • Radiographic assessment

5
Case details
  • 30 M, 26 F
  • 34 tibia, 27 femur (4 tibia and femur)
  • Simultaneous angular and rotational correction
    (20 cases)
  • Age at surgery 14.7Y(5-38.5)
  • Age at F/U 20.8 Y (10-42)
  • F/U 73.4 mo (17 -180)

6
Material Healing
Index(HI)
  • 32 patients lt 15Y
  • 24 patients gt15Y
  • Length gain
  • femur 5.8 cm (3-10)
  • tibia 7.4cm (3-14)
  • below 14 Y / over 14 Y ? 8.3 / 6.4 cm
  • Bifocal / unifocal ?
    11.2 / 7.2 cm
  • Mean (HI) 28.3 days/cm
  • Unifocal 30.5 days/cm
  • Bifocal 19.2days/ cm
  • Over 14Y versus under 14Y 31.2/ 26.2
  • Faster healing in bifocal and younger age
    (Plt0.05)

7
Healing Index Final length
  • Cause related
  • Congenital cases 24.8
  • Trauma 28.4
  • Infection 28.9
  • Miscellaneous 30.8
  • Polio 32.8
  • Time difference non significant
  • Achieved planned
  • length 44 , . 78.2
  • Re- lengthening
  • planned- Still immature
  • 4 , . 7.1
  • Still unequal at
  • maturity 8 ,. 14.2

8
Side effects
  • Problem (35)
  • 32 pin tract infection
  • 2 stiffness / sublux.
  • 1 early consolidation
  • Obstacle (19 in 14 cases)
  • 4 pressure sore
  • 10 early consolidation
  • 3 joint subluxation
  • More major side-effects in femoral
    bifocals congenital cases
  • Complication 21 in 19 cases)
  • peron.neuroparaxia1
  • stiff knees6
  • ankle equinus9 (47 plantigrade
  • malunion 4
  • 0.4 per femoral
  • 0.8 tibial side effects

9
Stiffness recovery / Functional results
  • Functional Recovery
  • SMFA, SF36
  • excellent 53.7
  • fair 42.9
  • poor 3.6
  • WOMAC
  • excellent 71.4 , fair 28.6
  • Patients and parents satisfaction scale
  • excellent 73.2 ,
  • fair 19.7 , poor4
  • 50cases(89.2) would still go for surgery
  • Stiffness recovery
  • Polio 2 months
  • Congenital 5.4 months

10
End result
  • Lengthenings were in Complex, complicated cases
  • major lengths were gained
  • 60 from villages or small towns
  • No group therapy, no formal physiotherapy
  • Complications equal or less than literature
  • 89 satisfaction,
  • Most would have done it again
  • Functional outcome was excellent
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com