Articles Vol. 66 No. CĐ2-NCKH 24/03/2025

7. TREATMENT OUTCOMES OF OPEN TIBIAL SHAFT FRACTURES USING A DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED CLAMP-TYPE EXTERNAL FIXATOR

Cao Thi1,2, Pham Quang Vinh1,2, Cao Ba Huong1,2, Doan Truong Giang3,4, Le Dinh Hai5,6, Tran Binh Duong5,6
1 University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh city
2 Đại học Y Dược thành phố Hồ Chí Minh
3 Cu Chi Regional General Hospital
4 Bệnh viện đa khoa khu vực Củ Chi
5 Cho Ray Hospital
6 Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy
Corresponding author: caothibacsi@ump.edu.vn
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v66iCĐ2.2190
33 Views
10 Downloads
Keywords
Clamp-type external fixator Muller external fixator open tibial fracture ball joint
Abstract

Objective: Evaluate the treatment outcomes of a newly developed domestically produced clamp-type external fixator with an adjustable ball joint, compared to the Muller external fixator.

Method: The study included 74 patients (75 tibial shafts) with open tibial fractures classified as Gustilo-Anderson grade I to grade IIIB, of whom 36 patients were treated with the Muller fixator and 38 patients (39 tibial shafts) with the clamp-type external fixator. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, surgical details, and clinical outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results: Both groups had similar age and gender distributions, with traffic accidents being the most common cause of injury. There was no significant difference in the mean time from injury to hospital admission and surgery between the groups. The fracture pattern, fracture location, and open fracture classification were comparable, with grade IIIA fractures being the most common in the clamp-type fixator group and grade II fractures being the most common in the Muller fixator group. The clamp-type fixator group required less time for frame placement but had a longer surgical duration. The rates of secondary displacement and pin tract infection were similar between the groups, but fewer cases of frame removal due to infection were observed in the clamp-type fixator group. Although the time to bone union was similar, the clamp-type fixator group had a higher bone union rate.

Conclusions: The newly developed domestically produced clamp-type external fixator initially shows promise as a more effective treatment for open tibial fractures compared to the Muller fixator.

References
[1]
Cao Thỉ, Khảo sát các gãy xương lớn tại Bệnh viện Chợ Rẫy trong 2 năm 2008-2009, Tạp chí Y học thực hành, 2010, 8 (729), tr. 39-40. Google Scholar
[2]
Dương Đình Toàn, Lê Xuân Tuấn, Đánh giá kết quả điều trị gãy hở hai xương cẳng chân có sử dụng khung cố định ngoài tại Bệnh viện Hữu Nghị Việt Đức, Tạp chí Y Học Việt Nam, 2022, 551 (2): 125-129. Google Scholar
[3]
Court-Brown C.M, Bugler K.E, Clement N.D, Duckworth A.D, McQueen M.M, The epidemiology of open fractures in adults, a 15-year review, Injury, 2012, 43 (6): 891-897, doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.12.007. Google Scholar
[4]
Vekris M.D, Lykissas M.G, Manoudis G et al, Proximal screws placement in intertrochanteric fractures treated with external fixation: comparison of two different techniques, J Orthop Surg Res., 2011, 6: 48, Published 2011 Sep 22, doi:10.1186/1749-799X-6-48. Google Scholar
[5]
Varady P.A, Greinwald M, Augat P, Biomechanical comparison of a novel monocortical and two common bicortical external fixation systems regarding rigidity and dynamic stability, Biomed Tech (Berl), 2018, 63 (6): 665-672, doi:10.1515/bmt-2017-0051. Google Scholar
[6]
Cao Thỉ, Phạm Quang Vinh, Cao Bá Hưởng và cộng sự, Đặc tính cơ học của khung cố định ngoài dạng khối cặp mới sản xuất dùng cố định gãy thân xương dài, Tạp chí Y học thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, 2021, 25 (1): 86-93. Google Scholar
[7]
De la Caffinière J.Y, Fauroux L, Haas J.L, La fracture séparation-enfoncement postérieure dans les fractures bimalléolaires [Posterior depression-separation fracture in bimalleolar fractures], Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot., 1990, 76 (8): 568-578. Google Scholar
[8]
Kamruzzaman M, Mahboob A.H, Saha M.K et al, Outcome of Ilizarov External Fixator for the Treatment of Gap Non-uniting Mid Shaft Tibia-fibula Fractures: Our Experience. Mymensingh Med J, 2020, 29 (2): 284-289. Google Scholar
[9]
Cao Thỉ, Đánh giá hiệu quả ghép tủy xương vào ổ gãy hở xương chày, Tạp chí Y Dược lâm sàng 108, 2006, Số đặc biệt Hội nghị thường niên Hội Chấn thương chỉnh hình Việt Nam lần thứ năm, Hà Nội, tr. 214-216. Google Scholar
[10]
Holbrook J.L, Swiontkowski M.F, Sanders R, Treatment of open fractures of the tibial shaft: Ender nailing versus external fixation, A randomized, prospective comparison, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1989, 71 (8): 1231-1238. Google Scholar
[11]
Bear N.E, Johnson W, Combined use of external skeletal fixation and internal screw fixation in tibial shaft fractures, Clin Orthop, 1955, 6: 141-148. Google Scholar
[12]
De Bastiani G, Aldegheri R, Renzi Brivio L, Dynamic axial fixation, A rational alternative for the external fixation of fractures, Int Orthop, 1986, 10 (2): 95-99. Google Scholar
[13]
Zachee B, Roosen P, Mc Aechern A.G, The dynamic axial fixator in fractures of the tibia and femur, A retrospective study in 98 patients, Acta Orthop Belg., 1991, 57 (3): 266-271. Google Scholar