• Thomas Hodkinson, William Groom, Panos Souroullas, Elizabeth Moulder, Ross Muir, and Hemant Sharma.
• Hull Royal Infirmary, Anlaby Road, Kingston upon Hull HU3 2JZ, UK.
• Injury. 2025 Feb 1; 56 (2): 112045112045.

AbstractFrame configuration for the management of complex tibial fractures is highly variable and is dependent upon both fracture pattern and surgeon preference. The optimal number of rings to use when designing a frame remains uncertain. Traditionally larger, multi-ring-per-segment constructs have been assumed to offer optimal stability and therefore favourable conditions for fracture healing but there is little in-vivo evidence for this and the recent concept of reverse dynamisation challenges this approach. We compared the clinical outcomes in 302 consecutive patients with tibial fractures treated in our unit with either a stable two-ring circular frame or a three-or-more-ring (3+) frame. The primary outcome measure was time spent in frame. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of malunion and the need for further surgical procedures to achieve bone union. The mean time in frame was 168 days for the 2-ring group and 202 days for the 3+ rings group (p = 0.003). No significant differences were found in the rate of malunion or the requirement for secondary surgical intervention to achieve union. The groups were evenly matched for age, co-morbidities, energy of injury mechanism, post-treatment alignment and presence of an open fracture. This study finds that 2-ring frame constructs are a reliable option associated with shorter duration of treatment and no increase in rates of adverse outcomes compared with larger, more complex frame configurations.Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

22 keywords...

hide…