simultaneous distal tibial distraction osteogenesis ...simultaneous distal tibial distraction...
TRANSCRIPT
Procedures
This series consisted of 5 distal tibial angular deformity correction and 5
tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis procedures. All cases were carried out with
simultaneous distal tibial distraction osteogenesis (DTDO) to address
LLD.
Patients and Surgical Concept
Demographics
• The mean patient age was 53.4 years
• There were 6 males and 4 females with a mean BMI of 28.14
• Two patients presented with a history of smoking
• There was a mean of 22.5 years from initial injury to presentation
• The most common cause of deformity was tibial fracture (6/10) with
(2/10) being open at the time of injury
• The second most common cause of deformity was a gun shot
wound & talar fracture, each representing (2/10)
MethodologyPurpose
To address whether reconstructive rearfoot/ankle surgery (RRAS) with concurrent lengthening through a distal tibial
corticotomy (DTC) using circular external fixation (CEF) offers a successful treatment option for patients with limb length
discrepancy (LLD) as a component of their overall deformity.
Discussion• The current study showed a 100% fusion rate, 70% initial consolidation rate with an overall 6 excellent, 3 acceptable,
and 1 good outcomes at a mean follow-up of 16 months similar to previous reports (4,21,22-23).
• Treatment recommendations have been suggested according to defect length (5,24) however, the current literature
does not reflect a strict adherence to these recommendations (3-19).
• This technique of simultaneous lengthening through a DTC was shown to be successful utilizing CEF and yielded a
clinically satisfactory result in patients with substantial preoperative deformity.
• We conclude that the ability to address long-standing or surgically induced LLD at the site of reconstruction using
DTDO is a successful treatment option comparable to other solutions in the literature, however, there is still no ideal
concept for every patient and further studies will be required to elucidate the most effective method for these
challenging cases.
Results • Ten patients underwent DTDO to address long-standing or surgically induced shortening as a result of preoperative
deformity and/or RRAS achieving a final LLD of ≤1.5 cm for all patients.
• The mean latency period was 9.33 days with a mean distraction length of 1.75 ± 0.62 cm.
• The mean duration of external fixation was 177.40 ± 67.05 days resulting in a mean external fixation/lengthening index
of 3.73 ± 1.84 months/cm.
• Five minor complications and four major complications occurred:
• Incomplete regenerate consolidation requiring bone grafting and internal hardware fixation occurred in 3/4, all of
which achieved solid union
• A chronic draining sinus tract excision and bone biopsy was required in 1/4 which resulted in resolution of drainage
• A method for evaluation of rearfoot and ankle deformity correction has been proposed in the literature (Table 3). Our
results are reported according to this method (Table 4).
Literature Review
• Limb length discrepancy >2 - 2.5 cm is poorly tolerated (1-2).
• It has been suggested that patients undergoing rearfoot fusions have improved tolerance with 0.5 – 1 cm limb
shortening to compensate for fusions & provide improved toe clearance in gate (3-4).
• There is no consensus in the literature as to the most favorable method of addressing LLD in the setting of RRAS
(Table 1).
Simultaneous Distal Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis & Lower Extremity
Reconstruction: A Retrospective ReviewTodd M. Chappell, DPM/PGYII1; Casey C. Ebert, DPM/PGYIII1; Byron L. Hutchinson, DPM, FACFAS1; Kevin M. McCann, DPM, FACFAS2
1Franciscan Foot & Ankle Institute, Federal Way, WA2St. Cloud Orthopedics, St. Cloud, MN
Table 2 - Retrospective Review of Clinical & Radiographic Data
Focus
Surgical reconstruction of rearfoot/ankle deformity with
simultaneous distal tibial distraction osteogenesis (DTDO)
to address LLD
CPT code 20692, 27705, 27709, 27715
Dates July 2009 – September 2014
Exclusion
• Under 18 years of age
• Less than 10 months of follow-up
• Incomplete radiographic imaging or clinical data
n= 10
Distal
lengthening
groups
Distal tibial angular
deformity and shortening
Tibiocalcaneal arthrodesis
with loss of height
Mean
follow-up16 months
ProcedureSurgical reconstruction of rearfoot/ankle deformity with
application of CEF and percutaneous DTC
Clinical &
radiographic
review
Demographics and comorbidities as well as peri-operative
analysis including previous surgical interventions, latency
periods, distraction rates, minor and major complications,
and clinical and radiographic review (Table 4)
Notes: CPT: Current Procedural Terminology
Fig. 3. Preoperative weight bearing radiographs of; (A) lateral ankle and (B) AP ankle demonstrating
AVN of the talar body and nonunion of talar neck fracture; (C) intraoperative lateral radiograph
demonstrating talectomy and preparation of tibiocalcaneal fusion; postoperative (D) AP and (E)
lateral radiographs demonstrating compression of fusion site and DTC site with application of CEF.
Distal Tibial Angular Deformity and Shortening (Figure 2)
• Following preoperative evaluation of LLD and angular deformity both
clinically and radiographically, tibial wedge resection was conducted at the
Center of Rotation of Angulation (CORA).
• This was followed by acute reduction of deformity and stabilization with an
intramedullary Steinmann pin during application of CEF.
• The site was then compressed and maintained during the latency period
before distraction was commenced at a rate of 0.5 mm/day for the
preoperatively determined duration to regain adequate limb length.
Fig. 2. Preoperative weight bearing radiographs of (A) 51 in. erect bipedal (B) anteroposterior (AP)
ankle and (C) lateral ankle showing LLD and angular deformity; (D) intraoperative image of laterally
based tibial wedge and (E) acute reduction of deformity and application of CEF.
Table 1 – Variable Methods to Address LLD (3-19)
Acceptance of LLD
Study (author/journal/year) Patients
(n)
Follow-up
(months)
Pathology/Treatment Outcome
Tenenbaum et al. Foot
Ankle Int. 2015
13 26.1 Talar AVN/Tibial rearfoot fusion 100% union and improvement in outcome
measure
Fragomen et al. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 2012
91 70 Failed ankle fusion/24/91 lengthened 84% union, >2.5 cm deficit recommend
lengthening
Metal Implants
Carlsson. J Foot Ankle
Surg. 2008
3 20.7 Failed ankle replacement/Titanium mesh 100% nonunion Intramedullary nail revision
66% fusion
Bullens et al. Foot Ankle
Surg. 2010
2 9 Failed ankle replacement/Intramedullary nail
and titanium cage
100% union
Sagherian et al. Foot Ankle
Int. 2015
3 57 Failed ankle replacement/Tantalum
trabecular metal
100% union at 3 months and improvement in
outcome scores
Sagherian et al. Foot Ankle
Int. 2012
25 27 Ankle, hindfoot, and/or midfoot pathology
requiring structural graft/Porous tantalum
spacer
100% fusion at 4-6 months with 56% no pain,
40% mild occasional pain, 4% moderate pain
Cohen et al. J Foot Ankle
Surg. 2015
1 21 Talar AVN/Porous tantalum spacer Solid fusion and independent ambulation
Bone Grafting
Myerson et al. J Bone Joint
Surg. 2005
73 42 Multiple pathologies/FFFHA Time to union was 4 months & 92% union rate
Burkowitz et al. Foot Ankle
Int. 2011
24 43.9 Failed ankle replacement/FFFHA w/ internal
fixation(plates and screws)
79% union
Deleu et al. Foot Ankle Int.
2014
17 29.1 Failed ankle replacement/FFFHA with
Internal fixation and Intramedullary nail
76.5% union at 3.7 months
Plaass et al. Foot Ankle Int.
2009
29 43.9 4 ankle nonunion & 9 failed TAR/FFFHA,
DBM, or no graft all with double plating
100% union at 13.2 weeks, 12.3 without graft,
14.3 interposition graft(DBM), 16.2 FFFHA
Distraction Osteogenesis
Green. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 1994
32 42 Segmental skeletal defects/15 bone graft vs
17 distraction osteogenesis with CEF
1.9 months/cm in both groups, 2/15 vs 7/17
required secondary grafting
McCoy et al. Foot Ankle Int.
2012
7 58 Failed ankle replacement/CEF with 4/7
lengthened ave. 5.7 cm with LATN technique
100% union
Sakurakichi et al. J Orthop
Sci. 2003
6 36 Failed ankle fusion/diaphyseal corticotomy
for <3 cm defects & bone transport for >5 cm,
3 intramedullary nails
100% union with mean length 4.1 cm, 22.1
days/cm, external fixation duration 234 days
Rochman et al. Foot Ankle
Int. 2008
11 35 Talar AVN and infection/8/11 proximal tibial
lengthening
82% union with mean length 4 cm, external
fixation duration 7 months
Schottel et al. J Orthop
Trauma. 2014
3 38.4 Distal tibial periarticular nonunions/Distal
bone distraction
100% union with mean defect 5.1 cm, mean
external fixation duration 7.5 months
Notes: AVN: Avascular Necrosis; FFFHA: Fresh-Frozen Femoral Head Allograft; TAR: Total Ankle Replacement; DBM: Demineralized Bone Matrix;
AVE: Average; LATN: Lengthening and Then Nailing
Table 3 – Method of Evaluation for Osseous Correction (4,21)
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Union Solid Nonunion
Infection Absence Presence
Deformity
• Hindfoot
• Neutral/slight
calcaneus
• Neutral to 5˚
valgus
• External rotation
0-15˚
• Neutral to slight
posterior
translation
• Slight equinus
<5˚
• 5-10˚ valgus or
varus
• <5˚ Internal
rotation
• <1 cm anterior
translation
• 5-10˚ dorsiflexion
or plantarflexion
• 5˚ varus or >10˚
valgus
• <5˚ Internal
rotation
• >1 cm anterior
translation
• Worse than
before
intervention
• Tibial Both coronal and
sagittal planes within
5˚ of normal
Acceptable Neither coronal nor
sagittal planes within
5˚ of normalEither coronal or sagittal plane within 5˚ of
normal
LLD <1.5 cm <3 cm >3 cm
Table 4 – Bone Results
n=10 Excellent Good Fair Poor
Union 10
Infection 10
Deformity
• Hindfoot
n=5
4 1
• Tibial
n=5
Acceptable
2 3
LLD 10
References1. Tellisi N, Fragomen AT, Ilizarov S, Rozbruch SR. Limb Salvage Reconstruction of the Ankle with Fusion and
Simultaneous Tibial Lengthening Using the Iliarov/Taylor Spatial Frame. Hosp Spec Surg J. 2008;4:32-42.
2. Keating JF, Simpson AHR, Robinson CM. The Management of Fractures with Bone Loss. J Bone Joint Surg (Br).
2005;87-B:142-150.
3. McCoy TH, Goldman V, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Circular External Fixator-Assisted Ankle Arthrodesis Following
Failed Total Ankle Arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(11):947-955.
4. Katsenis D, Bhave A, Paley D, Herzenberg JE. Treatment of Malunion and Nonunion at the Site of an Ankle Fusion with
the Ilizarov Apparatus. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87-A(2):302-309.
5. Green SA. Skeletal Defects: A Comparison of Bone Grafting and Bone Transport for Segmental Skeletal Defects. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:111-117.
6. Tenenbaum S, Stockton KG, Bariteau JT, Brodsky JW. Salvage of Avascular Necrosis of the Talus by Combined Ankle
and Hindfoot Arthrodesis Without Structural Bone Graft. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(3):282-287.
7. Fragomen AT, Borst E, Schachter L, Lyman S, Rozbruch SR. Complex Ankle Arthrodesis Using the Ilizarov Method
Yields High Rate of Fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2864-2873.
8. Carlsson A. Unsuccessful Use of a Titanium Mesh Cage in Ankle Arthrodesis: A Report on Three Cases Operated Due to
a Failed Ankle Replacement. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2008;47(4)337-342.
9. Bullens P, Malefijt MdW, Louwerens JW. Conversion of Failed Ankle Arthroplasty to an Arthrodesis Technique Using and
Arthrodesis Nail and a Cage Filled with Morsellized Bone Graft. Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;16:101-104.
10. Sagherian BH, Claridge RJ. Porous Tantalum as a Structural Graft in Foot and Ankle Surgery. Foot Ankle Int.
2012;33(3):179-189.
11. Sagherian BH, Claridge RJ. Salvage of Failed Total Ankle Replacement Using Tantalum Trabecular Metal: Case Series.
Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(3):318-324.
12. Cohen MM, Kazak M. Tibiocalcaneal Arthrodesis with a Porous Tantalum Spacer and Locked Intramedullary Nail for
Post-Traumatic Global Avascular Necrosis of the Talus. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54:1172-1177.
13. Myerson MS, Neufeld SK, Uribe J. Fresh-Frozen Structural Allografts in the Foot and Ankle. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87-
A(1):133-120.
14. Berkowitz MJ, Clare MP, Walling AK, Sanders RW. Salvage of Failed Total Ankle Arthroplasty with Fusion Using
Structural Allograft and Internal Fixation. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(5):493-502.
15. Deleu PA, Bevernage BD, Maldague P, Gombault V, Leemrijse T. Arthrodesis After Failed Total Ankle Replacement.
Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(6):549-557.
16. Plaass C, Knupp M, Barg A, Hintermann B. Anterior Double Plating for Rigid Fixation of Isolated Tibiotalar Arthrodesis.
Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(7):631-639.
17. Sakurakichi K, Tsuchiya H, Uehara K, Kabata T, Yamashiro T. Ankle Arthrodesis Combined with Tibial Lengthening
Using the Ilizarov Apparatus. J Orthop Sci. 2003;8:20-25.
18. Rochman R, Hutson JJ, Alade O. Tibiocalcaneal Arthrodesis Using the Ilizarov Technique in the Presence of Bone Loss
and Infection of the Talus. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(10):1001-1008.
19. Schottel PC, Muthusamy S, Rozbruch R. Distal Tibial Periarticular Nonunions: Ankle Salvage with Bone Transport. J
Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(6):e146-e152.
20. Ilizarov GA. The Tension-Stress Effect on the Genesis and Growth of Tissues-Part I: The Influence and Stability of
Fixation and Soft-Tissue Preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;238:249-281.
21. Schoenleber SJ, Hutson Jr JJ. Treatment of Hypertrophic Distal Tibia Nonunion and Early Malunion with Callus
Distraction. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(4):400-407.
22. Berkowitz MJ, Sanders RW, Walling AK. Salvage Arthrodesis After Failed Ankle Replacement: Surgical Decision Making.
Foot Ankle Clin N Am. 2012;17:725-740.
23. Gross C, Erickson BJ, Adams SB, Parekh SG. Ankle Arthrodesis After Failed Total Ankle Replacement-A Systematic
Review of the Literature. Foot Ankle Spec. 2015;8(2):143-151.
24. DeCoster TA, Gehlert RJ, Mikola EA, Pirela-Cruz MA. Management of Posttraumatic Segmental Bone Defects. J Am
Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12:28-38.
The concept of Illizarov’s Tension-
Stress Effect suggests a 2-3x increase
in blood flow to the adjacent fusion site
during distraction osteogenesis (20).
These biologic principles suggest a
potential benefit to fusion with
concurrent lengthening though a distal
tibial corticotomy when performing
rearfoot fusion or in acute correction for
distal tibial deformity (Figure 1).
Fig. 1. Schematic representing distal tibial distraction in the setting of talectomy. This is
also representative of the technique for distal tibial angular deformity correction in the
setting of LLD as well as total ankle explantation.
E
Tibiocalcaneal Arthrodesis with Loss of Height (Figure 3)
• Following preoperative evaluation, excision of nonviable bone or total
ankle implant was conducted and both tibial and calcaneal surfaces were
prepared for fusion.
• This was followed by temporary stabilization with an intramedullary
Steinmann pin during application of CEF.
• The fusion site was then compressed and a percutaneous DTC was
conducted and subsequently compressed and maintained during the
latency period before distraction was commenced at a rate of 0.5 mm/day
for the intraoperatively determined duration to regain adequate limb
length.
A B
D
C
E
A B C D