Trifocal versus Pentafocal bone transport in segmental tibial defects: a matched comparative analysis for posttraumatic osteomyelitis treatment

Yimurang Hamiti,Patiman Abudureyimu,Gang Lyu,Aihemaitijiang Yusufu and Maimaiaili Yushan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07507-w

IF: 2.562

2024-05-15

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract:The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and clinical results of trifocal bone transport (TBT) and pentafocal bone transport (PBT) in treating distal tibial defects > 6 cm resulting from posttraumatic osteomyelitis, highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of each method.

orthopedics,rheumatology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### Problems the Paper Attempts to Solve

This paper aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and clinical outcomes of Trifocal Bone Transport (TBT) and Pentafocal Bone Transport (PBT) in treating distal tibial defects greater than 6 cm caused by post-traumatic osteomyelitis, highlighting the advantages and challenges of each method.

### Summary of the Paper

**Objective**: The objective of the study is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and clinical outcomes of TBT and PBT in treating distal tibial defects greater than 6 cm caused by post-traumatic osteomyelitis, highlighting the advantages and challenges of each method.

**Methods**: The study conducted a retrospective analysis of 46 patients with distal tibial defects greater than 6 cm who were treated between January 2015 and January 2019. Through propensity score matching, 10 patients treated with TBT were paired with 10 patients treated with PBT. The outcomes assessed included demographic information, external fixation time (EFT), external fixation index (EFI), bone and functional outcomes evaluated using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) scoring system, and postoperative complications assessed using the Paley classification.

**Results**: The demographic and baseline data of the two groups were comparable. After thorough debridement, the average tibial defect was 7.02±0.68 cm. The average EFT in the PBT group was significantly shorter than in the TBT group (130.9±16.0 days vs. 297.3±14.3 days). Similarly, the EFI in the PBT group was lower than in the TBT group (20.67±2.75 days/cm vs. 35.86±3.69 days/cm). Both groups demonstrated satisfactory postoperative bone and functional outcomes. The most common complication was pin tract infection, with a significant difference in incidence between the two groups, being higher in the PBT group.

**Conclusion**: Both TBT and PBT are effective in treating tibial defects greater than 6 cm caused by post-traumatic osteomyelitis, with PBT providing more efficient bone regeneration. However, PBT is associated with a higher rate of pin tract infections, emphasizing the need for careful management and specialized surgical execution in these complex procedures.