Advertisement

The Treatment of Complications in Ilizarov Technique

  • Mustafa Uysal
Chapter

Abstract

Complications may emerge as undesirable and unexpected situations during treatment. In some cases, they become a barrier to reach the target, so they adversely affect the course of treatment. How much a complication affects the outcome of treatment is closely related with the severity of complications.

The Ilizarov technique is likely to have a higher complication rate because most cases are complicated and have long periods of treatment, which can create the wrong perception that the Ilizarov technique is too difficult to perform. However, it is logical to accept the risk of complications alongside the wide range of opportunities provided by Ilizarov’s device.

The awareness of complication risks, skills, and knowledge to treat complications are basic requirements for this technique. Otherwise, even simple problems can lead to serious complications, which negatively affect patient satisfaction.

References

  1. 1.
    Codivilla A, The classic. On the means of lengthening, in the lower limbs, the muscles and tissues which are shortened through deformity. 1905. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(12):2903–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Velazquez RJ et al. Complications of use of the Ilizarov technique in the correction of limb deformities in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(8):1148–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahl MT, Gulli B, Berg T. Complications of limb lengthening A learning curve. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:10–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caton J. Traitment des inegalites de longeur des membres inferieurs et des sujets de petite taille chez l'enfant et l'adolecent. Rev Chir Orthop. 1991;77(suppl.1):31–80.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vargas Barreto B et al. Complications of Ilizarov leg lengthening: a comparative study between patients with leg length discrepancy and short stature. Int Orthop. 2007;31(5):587–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Popkov A. Erors and complications of operative lengthening of the lower extremities in adults by the Ilizarov method. Vestn Khir Im I Grek. 1991;1:113–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;250:81–104.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eralp L et al. A review of problems, obstacles and sequelae encountered during femoral lengthening : uniplanar versus circular external fixator. Acta Orthop Belg. 2010;76(5):628–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Antoci V et al. Pin-tract infection during limb lengthening using external fixation. Am J Orthop. 2008;37(9):E150–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eldridge JC, Bell DF. Problems with substantial limb lengthening. Orthop Clin North Am. 1991;22(4):625–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E et al. Ilizarov technique results and difficulties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;283:116–23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green SA, Ripley MJ. Chronic osteomyelitis in pin tracks. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(7):1092–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damsin JP, Ghanem I. Treatment of severe flexion deformity of the knee in children and adolescents using the Ilizarov technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(1):140–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Acharya A, Guichet JM. Effect on knee motion of gradual intramedullary femoral lengthening. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;72(5):569–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herzenberg JE et al. Knee range of motion in isolated femoral lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:49–54.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kocaoglu M et al. Complications encountered during lengthening over an intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(11):2406–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones DC, Moseley CF. Subluxation of the knee as a complication of femoral lengthening by the Wagner technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67(1):33–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suzuki S et al. Dislocation and subluxation during femoral lengthening. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14(3):343–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Young NL et al. Electromyographic and nerve conduction changes after tibial lengthening by the Ilizarov method. J Pediatr Orthop. 1993;13(4):473–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young N, Bell DF, Anthony A. Pediatric pain patterns during Ilizarov treatment of limb length discrepancy and angular deformity. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14(3):352–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kenawey M et al. Insufficient bone regenerate after intramedullary femoral lengthening: risk factors and classification system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):264–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kocaoglu M et al. Management of stiff hypertrophic nonunions by distraction osteogenesis: a report of 16 cases. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17(8):543–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner H. Operative lengthening of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;136:125.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Bastiani G et al. Limb lengthening by callus distraction (callotasis). J Pediatr Orthop. 1987;7(2):129–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burghardt RD et al. Mechanical failure of the Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor in limb lengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(5):639–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McKee MD et al. The effect of smoking on clinical outcome and complication rates following Ilizarov reconstruction. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17(10):663–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sakarya University, School of MedicineDepartment of Orthopedics and TraumatologySakaryaTurkey

Personalised recommendations