Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of study and patient characteristics

From: Reconstruction of massive tibial defect caused by osteomyelitis using induced membrane followed by trifocal bone transport technique: a retrospective study and our experience

Study Study type Patients (M/F) Mean ages (years) Mean defect sizes (cm, range) Treatment type (trifocal/bifocal) Bone union rate Bony results (excellent/good/fair/poor) Functional results (excellent/good/fair/poor) EFI (days/cm) Follow-up (months)
Abuomira et al. [41] IBT 55 (44/11) 41.5 7.1 (3–17) 29/26 89% 28/18/5/4 25/21/5/4 nr 50
Bernstein et al. [42] IBT 30 (24/6) 43 5.7 (1.6–12) 0/30 77% 27/2/0/1 27/1/0/0 nr 33
Meleppuram et al. [43] IBT 42 (32/10) 38 nr (2.5–5.5) nr/36 100% 25/6/11/0 23/13/2/4 nr 14
Kinik et al. [44] IBT 30 (28/2) 39.5 8.1 (6–15) 0/30 96.66% 22/6/0/0 19/7/2/0 44.7 32.5
Fahad et al. [45] IBT 51 (41/10) 45.7 3.5 (2–5) 0/51 96% 22/19/7/3 24/21/4/2 60 36.8
Rohilla et al. [46] IBT 70 (62/8) 31.3 5.8 (3–9) vs 5.8 (3–10) 0/70 77% vs 80% 35/27/3/5 38/27/1/3 63.6 vs 63.3 33.8 vs 32.6
Catagni et al. [21] IBT 86 (77/9) 42 vs 43 13.5 (10.5–16.5) vs 12.5 (9.6–14.4) 41/45 100% 68/11/3/4 47/21/14/4 41/44 nr
Zhang et al. [47] IBT 16 (9/7) 39.1 10.9 (6–20) 16/0 100% 10/0/6/0 12/4/0/0 33 29.5
Li et al. [48] IBT 26 (20/6) 40.4 10.7 (7.5–15) vs 7.2 (5.8–9) 13/13 100% 20/0/6/0 22/4/0/0 36.6 vs 75.6 28.5
Paley et al. [49] IBT 19 (14/5) 38 10.7 (2–20) 6/13 100% 15/3/1/0 (paley) 12/6/1/0 (paley) 51 78
Tone et al. [50] IM 20 (15/5) 39.9 6.69 100% 5/10/4/1 8/9/3/0 54.9 23.2
Morris et al. [11] IM 12 (9/3) 35 5.8 (2–15) 42% nr nr nr 22.5
El-Alfy et al. [51] IM 15 (12/3) 32 8 (5–14) 87% nr nr nr 23
Present study IM + IBT 18 (12/6) 40.4 6.8 (6–8.2) 18/0 100% 6/8/3/1 4/10/2/2 37.1 28.5
  1. EFI external fixation index, M male, F female, IBT Ilizarov bone transport, IM induced membrane, nr not reported