Contact No: +91-8826373757 | +91-8826859373 | 011-25052216
Email: rakesh.its@gmail.com | editor@innovativepublication.com

Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Surgery


Comparison of Ilizarov and rail fixator in non union of long bones


Full Text PDF Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Author Details: Kanwarjit S. Sandhu, Girish Sahni, Bhupinder S. Brar, Karamdeep S. Kahal, Gunvinder Singh

Volume : 4

Issue : 2

Online ISSN : 2395-1362

Print ISSN : 2395-1354

Article First Page : 109

Article End Page : 114


Abstract

Introduction: Non-union of long bones is a challenging scenario to deal with as management of such fractures is difficult. Tibia is common site of non union.1 Various modes of treatment are available such as ultrasound, electrical stimulation, bone grafting and bone transport by illizarov and rail fixator. We have compared the role of Ilizarov and Rail fixator devices in our study of 15 patients each under both groups. Only Rail fixator had some more patient tolerance as compared to Ilizarov due to problems such as heavy apparatus.
Materials and Methods: 15 patients of non union long bones in each group from 21 to 60 years with mean age of 37.6 year in group A and 40.5 years in group B. 90% of the patients were male. Most of the patients had non union of tibia and further the middle one third was more commoly involved in either group. Nine out of 15 patients in both the groups had infected type of non-union. Average shortening was 2.9 cm in group A and 2.86 cm in group B. Maximum number of patients had undergone about two previous surgeries. 12 patients underwent acute docking or compression in group A compared to 13 in group B. Three and two patients underwent compression – distraction for treatment of non union in group A & B respectively. Patients were followed up at 6, 12 and 24 week intervals.
Result: In our study union was seen in 13 cases in group A and 14 cases in group B. The duration for union was average 8.8 months and 8.1 months in respective groups. Normal range of motion in nearby joint was achieved in 80% cases. We had excellent to good limb function in 80% of the cases in Group A and 86% of cases as per ASAMI scoring system.
Conclusion: Bone results were more or less similar in both the groups. Functional results were a bit better in rail fixator group. Rate of complication were also similar in our study. However patients tolerated rail road with ease and application of rail fixator and comfortable distraction procedure had marginal benefit over Ilizarov.

Keywords: Ilizarov, Rail fixator, Non union , Long bones, Infection, Tibia.

Doi :-https://doi.org/10.18231/2395-1362.2018.0024