Vip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai 👉 8250192130 ❣️💯 Top Class Girls Available
G11-Ex-Fix-Principles-JTG-rev-2-4-10.ppt
1. Principles of External Fixation
Roman Hayda, MD
Original Authors: Alvin Ong, MD & Roman Hayda, MD; March 2004;
New Author: Roman Hayda, MD; Revised November, 2008
3. Indications
• Definitive fx care:
• Open fractures
• Peri-articular fractures
• Pediatric fractures
• Temporary fx care
• “Damage control”
– Long bone fracture
temporization
• Pelvic ring injury
• Periarticular fractures
– Pilon fracture
• Malunion/nonunion
• Arthrodesis
• Osteomyelitis
• Limb
deformity/length
inequality
• Congenital
• Acquired
4. Advantages
• Minimally invasive
• Flexibility (build to fit)
• Quick application
• Useful both as a temporizing or definitive
stabilization device
• Reconstructive and salvage applications
Complex 3-C humerus fx
5. Disadvantages
• Mechanical
– Distraction of fracture site
– Inadequate immobilization
– Pin-bone interface failure
– Weight/bulk
– Refracture (pediatric femur)
• Biologic
– Infection (pin track)
• May preclude conversion to IM nailing or internal fixation
– Neurovascular injury
– Tethering of muscle
– Soft tissue contracture
May result in
malunion/nonunion,
loss of function
7. < 1/3 dia
Pins
• Principle: The pin is the critical link
between the bone and the frame
– Pin diameter
• Bending stiffness
proportional to r4
• 5mm pin 144% stiffer
than 4mm pin
– Pin insertion technique respecting bone
and soft tissue
8. Pins
• Various diameters, lengths,
and designs
– 2.5 mm pin
– 4 mm short thread pin
– 5 mm predrilled pin
– 6 mm tapered or conical pin
– 5 mm self-drilling and self tapping
pin
– 5 mm centrally threaded pin
• Materials
– Stainless steel
– Titanium
• More biocompatible
• Less stiff
10. Pin coatings
• Recent development of various coatings
(Chlorohexidine, Silver, Hydroxyapatite)
– Improve fixation to bone
– Decrease infection
– Moroni, JOT, ’02
• Animal study, HA pin 13X higher extraction torque vs
stainless and titanium and equal to insertion torque
– Moroni, JBJS A, ’05
• 0/50 pts pin infection in tx of pertrochanteric fx
11. Pin Insertion Technique
1. Incise skin
2. Spread soft tissues to
bone
3. Use sharp drill with
sleeve
4. Irrigate while drilling
5. Place appropriate pin
using sleeve
Avoid soft tissue damage and bone
thermal necrosis
12. Pin insertion
• Self drilling pin
considerations
– Short drill flutes
• thermal necrosis
• stripping of near
cortex with far cortex
contact
– Quick insertion
– Useful for short term
applications
vs.
13. Pin Length
•Half Pins
–single point of entry
–Engage two cortices
•Transfixation Pins
–Bilateral, uniplanar fixation
–lower stresses at pin bone
interface
–Limited anatomic sites (nv
injury)
–Traveling traction
Courtesy Matthew Camuso
14. Pin Diameter Guidelines
•Femur – 5 or 6 mm
•Tibia – 5 or 6 mm
•Humerus – 5 mm
•Forearm – 4 mm
•Hand, Foot – 3 mm
Slide courtesy Matthew Camuso
< 1/3 dia
15. Clamps
• Two general varieties:
– Single pin to bar clamps
– Multiple pin to bar clamps
• Features:
– Multi-planar adjustability
– Open vs closed end
• Principles
– Must securely hold the
frame to the pin
– Clamps placed closer to
bone increases the
stiffness of the entire
fixator construct
17. Bars
•Stainless vs Carbon
Fiber
–Radiolucency
–↑ diameter = ↑ stiffness
–Carbon 15% stiffer vs
stainless steel in loading to
failure
–frames with carbon fiber
are only 85% as stiff ? ? ?
?Weak link is clamp to
carbon bar?
Kowalski M, et al, Comparative Biomechanical Evaluation of Different External Fixator Sidebars: Stainless-Steel Tubes versus
Carbon Fiber Bars, JOT 10(7): 470-475, 1996
Added bar stiffness
≠
increased frame stiffness
18. Ring Fixators
• Components:
– Tensioned thin wires
• olive or straight
– Wire and half pin clamps
– Rings
– Rods
– Motors and hinges (not
pictured)
19. Ring Fixators
• Principles:
– Multiple tensioned thin wires (90-
130 kg)
– Place wires as close to 90
o
to
each other
– Half pins also effective
– Use full rings (more difficult to
deform)
• Can maintain purchase in
metaphyseal bone
• Allows dynamic axial
loading
• May allow joint motion
20. Multiplanar Adjustable Ring
Fixators
• Application with wire or half pins
• Adjustable with 6 degrees of freedom
– Deformity correction
• acute
• chronic
24. Hybrid Fixators
• Combines the
advantages of ring
fixators in periarticular
areas with simplicity
of planar half pin
fixators in diaphyseal
bone
From Rockwood and Green’s, 5th Ed
25. Biomechanical Comparison
Hybrid vs Ring Frames
• Ring frames resist axial and bending
deformation better than any hybrid
modification
• Adding 2nd proximal ring and anterior half
pin improves stability of hybrid frame
Pugh et al, JOT, ‘99
Yilmaz et al, Clin Biomech, 2003
Roberts et al, JOT, 2003
Clinical application: Use full ring fixator for fx
with bone defects or expected long frame time
26. MRI Compatability
• Issues:
– Safety
• Magnetic field displacing ferromagnetic object
– Potential missile
• Heat generation by induced fields
– Image quality
• Image distortion
27. MRI Compatibility
• Stainless steel components (pins, clamps,
rings) most at risk for attraction and heating
• Titanium (pins), aluminum (rods, clamps,
rings) and carbon fiber (rods, rings)
demonstrate minimal heating and attraction
• Almost all are safe if the components are not
directly within the scanner (subject to local policy)
• Consider use of MRI “safe” ex fix when area
interest is spanned by the frame and use
titanium pins Kumar, JOR, 2006
Davison, JOT, 2004
Cannada, CORR, 1995
28. Frame Types
• Standard frame
• Joint spanning frame:
– Nonarticulated
– Articulated frame
• Distraction or Correction frame
30. Joint Spanning Frame
• Joint Spanning Frame
– Indications:
• Peri-articular fx
– Definitive fixation
through ligamentotaxis
– Temporizing
» Place pins away from
possible ORIF
incision sites
• Arthrodesis
• Stabilization of limb with
severe ligamentous or
vascular injury: Damage
control
31. Articulated Frame
• Articulating Frame
– Limited indications
• Intra- and peri-articular fractures or
ligamentous injury
• Most commonly used in the ankle, elbow
and knee
– Allows joint motion
– Requires precise placement of hinge in the
axis of joint motion
(Figure from: Rockwood and Green, Fractures in Adults, 4th ed, Lippincott-Raven, 1996)
32. Correction of Deformity or Defects
• May use unilateral or ring frames
• Simple deformities may use simple frames
• Complex deformities require more complex
frames
• All require careful planning
33. • 3B tibia with segmental bone loss, 3A
plateau, temporary spanning ex fix
34. • Convert to circular
frame, orif plateau
• Corticotomy
and distraction
38. Fixator Mechanics:
Pin Factors
• Larger pin
diameter
• Increased pin
spread
– on the same side of
the fracture
• Increased number
of pins (both in
and out of plane
of construct)
39. Fixator Mechanics:
Pin Factors
• Oblique fxs subject to
shear
• Use oblique pin to
counter these effects
Metcalfe, et al, JBJS B, 2005
Lowenberg, et al, CORR, 2008
40. Fixator Mechanics: Rod Factors
• Frames placed in the same plane as the applied load
• Decreased distance from bars to bone
• Stacking of bars
42. Frame Mechanics: Ring Fixators
• Spread wires to as
close to 90
o
as
anatomically
possible
• Use at least 2 planes
of wires/half pins in
each major bone
segment
43. Modes of Fixation
• Compression
– Sufficient bone stock
– Enhances stability
– Intimate contact of bony ends
– Typically used in arthrodesis or to complete union of a fracture
• Neutralization
– Comminution or bone loss present
– Maintains length and alignment
– Resists external deforming forces
• Distraction
– Reduction through ligamentotaxis
– Temporizing device
– Distraction osteogenesis
44. Biology
• Fracture healing by stable
yet less rigid systems
– Dynamization
– Micromotion
• micromotion = callus
formation
(Figures from: Rockwood and Green,
Fractures in Adults, 4th ed,
Lippincott-Raven, 1996)
Kenwright, CORR, 1998
Larsson, CORR, 2001
45. Biology
• Dynamization = load-
sharing construct that
promote micromotion at
the fracture site
• Controlled load-sharing
helps to "work harden" the
fracture callus and
accelerate remodeling
(Figures from: Rockwood and Green,
Fractures in Adults, 4th ed,
Lippincott-Raven, 1996)
•Kenwright and Richardson, JBJS-B, ‘91
•Quicker union less refracture
•Marsh and Nepola, ’91
•96% union at 24.6 wks
46. Anatomic Considerations
• Fundamental knowledge of the anatomy is critical
• Avoidance of major nerves,vessels and organs
(pelvis) is mandatory
• Avoid joints and joint capsules
– Proximal tibial pins should be placed 14 mm distal to articular
surface to avoid capsular reflection
• Minimize muscle/tendon impalement (especially
those with large excursions)
48. Upper Extremity “Safe” Sites
• Humerus: narrow lanes
– Proximal: axillary n
– Mid: radial nerve
– Distal: radial, median and ulnar n
– Dissect to bone, Use sleeves
• Ulna: safe subcutaneous border, avoid
overpenetration
• Radius: narrow lanes
– Proximal: avoid because radial n and PIN, thick muscle sleeve
– Mid and distal: use dissection to avoid sup. radial n.
49. Damage Control and Temporary
Frames
• Initial frame application
rapid
• Enough to stabilize but is
not definitive frame!
• Be aware of definitive
fixation options
– Avoid pins in surgical approach
sites
• Depending on clinical
situation may consider
minimal fixation of articular
surface at initial surgery
50. Conversion to Internal Fixation
• Generally safe within 2-3 wks
– Bhandari, JOT, 2005
• Meta analysis: 6 femur, 9 tibia, all but one retrospective
• Infection in tibia and femur <4%
• Rods or plates appropriate
• Use with caution with signs of pin irritation
– Consider staged procedure
• Remove and curette sites
• Return following healing for definitive fixation
– Extreme caution with established pin track infection
– Maurer, ’89
• 77% deep infection with h/o pin infection
51. Evidence
• Femur fx
– Nowotarski, JBJS-A, ’00
• 59 fx (19 open), 54 pts,
• Convert at 7 days (1-49 days)
• 1 infected nonunion, 1 aseptic
nonunion
– Scalea, J Trauma, ’00
• 43 ex-fix then nailed vs 284
primary IM nail
• ISS 26.8 vs 16.8
• Fluids 11.9l vs 6.2l first 24
hrs
• OR time 35 min EBL 90cc vs
135 min EBL 400cc
• Ex fix group 1 infected
nonunion, 1 aseptic nonunion
Bilat open femur, massive
compartment syndrome, ex fix
then nail
52. Evidence
• Pilon fx
– Sirkin et al, JOT, 1999
• 49 fxs, 22 open
• plating @ 12-14 days,
• 5 minor wound problems, 1 osteomyelitis
– Patterson & Cole, JOT, 1999
• 22 fxs
• plating @ 24 d (15-49)
• no wound healing problems
• 1 malunion, 1 nonunion
58. Pin-track Infection
• Treatment:
– Stage I: aggressive pin-site care and oral cephalosporin
– Stage II: same as Stage I and +/- Parenteral Abx
– Stage III: Removal/exchange of pin plus Parenteral Abx
– Stage IV: same as Stage III, culture pin site for
offending organism, specific IV Abx for 10 to 14 days,
surgical debridement of pin site
61. Frame Failure
• Incidence: Rare
• Theoretically can occur with recycling of
old frames
• However, no proof that frames can not be
re-used
62. Malunion
Intra-operative causes:
– Due to poor technique
• Prevention:
– Clear pre-operative planning
– Prep contralateral limb for comparison
– Use fluoroscopic and/or intra-operative films
– Adequate construct
• Treatment:
– Early: Correct deformity and adjust or re-apply frame prior to bony
union
– Late: Reconstructive correction of malunion
63. Malunion
Post-operative causes:
– Due to frame failure
• Prevention:
– Proper follow-up with both clinical and radiographic
check-ups
– Adherence to appropriate weight-bearing restrictions
– Check and re-tighten frame at periodic intervals
• Treatment:
– Osteotomy/reconstruction
64. Non-union
• Union rates comparable to those achieved with
internal fixation devices
• Minimized by:
– Avoiding distraction at fracture site
– Early bone grafting
– Stable/rigid construct
– Good surgical technique
– Control infections
– Early wt bearing
– Progressive dynamization
65. Soft-tissue Impalement
• Tethering of soft tissues can result in:
– Loss of motion
– Scarring
– Vessel injury
• Prevention:
– Check ROM intra-operatively
– Avoid piercing muscle or tendons
– Position joint in NEUTRAL
– Early stretching and ROM exercises
66. Compartment Syndrome
• Rare
• Cause:
– Injury related
– pin or wire causing intracompartmental bleeding
• Prevention:
– Clear understanding of the anatomy
– Good technique
– Post-operative vigilance
67. Future Areas of Development
• Pin coatings/sleeves
– Reduce infection
– Reduce pin loosening
• Optimization of dynamization for fracture
healing
• Increasing ease of use/reduced cost
68. Construct Tips
• Chose optimal pin diameter
• Use good insertion technique
• Place clamps and frames close to skin
• Frame in plane of deforming forces
• Stack frame (2 bars)
• Re-use/Recycle components (requires
certified inspection).
Plan ahead!
69. Summary
• Multiple applications
• Choose components and geometry suitable
for particular application
• Appropriate use can lead to excellent results
• Recognize and correct complications early
Return to
General/Principles
Index
If you would like to volunteer as an author for
the Resident Slide Project or recommend
updates to any of the following slides, please
send an e-mail to ota@ota.org
70. References
1. Bhandari M, Zlowodski M, Tornetta P, Schmidt A, Templeman D. Intramedullary Nailing Following External Fixation in Femoral and Tibial Shaft Fractures. Evidence-
Based Orthopaedic Trauma , JOT, 19(2): 40-144, 2005.
2. Cannada LK, Herzenberg JE, Hughes PM, Belkoff S. Safety and Image Artifact of External Fixators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. CORR, 317, 206-214:1995.
3. Davison BL, Cantu RV, Van Woerkom S. The Magnetic Attraction of Lower Extremity External Fixators in an MRI Suite. JOT, 18 (1): 24-27, 2004.
4. Kenwright J, Richardson JB, Cunningham, et al. Axial movement and tibial fractures. A controlled randomized trial of treatment, JBJS-B, 73 (4): 654-650, 1991.
5. Kenwright J , Gardner T. Mechanical influences on tibial fracture healing. CORR, 355: 179-190,1998.
6. Kowalski, M et al, Comparative Biomechanical Evaluation of Different External Fixator Sidebars: Stainless-Steel Tubes versus Carbon Fiber Bars, JOT 10(7): 470-
475, 1996.
7. Kumar R, Lerski RA, Gandy S, Clift BA, Abboud RJ. Safety of orthopedic implants in Magnetic Resonance Imaging: an Experimental Verification. J Orthop Res, 24
(9): 1799-1802, 2006.
8. Larsson S, Kim W, Caja VL, Egger EL, Inoue N, Chao EY. Effect of early axial dynamization on tibial bone healing: a study in dogs. CORR, 388: 240-51, 2001.
9. Lowenberg DW, Nork S, Abruzzo FM. The correlation of shearing force with fracture line migration for progressive fracture obliquities stabilized by external fixation
in the tibial model. CORR, 466:2947–2954, 2008.
10. Marsh JL. Nepola JV, Wuest TK, Osteen D, Cox K, Oppenheim W. Unilateral External Fixation Until Healing with the Dynamic Axial Fixator for Severe Open Tibial
Fractures. Review of Two Consecutive Series , JOT, 5(3): 341-348, 1991.
11. Maurer DJ, Merkow RL, Gustilo RB. Infection after intramedullary nailing of severe open tibial fractures initially treated with external fixation. JBJS-A, 71(6), 835-
838, 1989.
12. Metcalfe AJ, Saleh M, Yang L. Techniques for improving stability in oblique fractures treated by circular fixation with particular reference to the sagittal plane. JBJS B,
87 (6): 868-872, 2005.
13. Moroni A, Faldini C, Marchetti S, Manca M, Consoli V, Giannini S. Improvement of the Bone-Pin Interface Strength in Osteoporotic Bone with Use of Hydroxyapatite-
Coated Tapered External-Fixation Pins: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study of Wrist Fractures . JBJS –A, 83:717-721, 2001.
14. Moroni A, Faldini C. Pegreffi F. Hoang-Kim A. Vannini F. Giannini S. Dynamic Hip Screw versus External Fixation for Treatment of Osteoporotic Pertrochanteric
Fractures, J BJS-A. 87:753-759, 2005.
15. Moroni A. Faldini C. Rocca M. Stea S. Giannini S. Improvement of the bone-screw interface strength with hydroxyapatite-coated and titanium-coated AO/ASIF cortical
screws. J OT. 16(4): 257-63, 2002 .
16. Nowotarski PJ, Turen CH, Brumback RJ, Scarboro JM, Conversion of External Fixation to Intramedullary Nailing for Fractures of the Shaft of the Femur in Multiply
Injured Patients, JBJS-A, 82:781-788, 2000.
17. Patterson MJ, Cole J. Two-Staged Delayed Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Severe Pilon Fractures. JOT, 13(2): 85-91, 1999.
18. Pugh K.J, Wolinsky PR, Dawson JM, Stahlman GC. The Biomechanics of Hybrid External Fixation. JOT. 13(1):20-26, 1999.
19. Roberts C, Dodds JC, Perry K, Beck D, Seligson D, Voor M. Hybrid External Fixation of the Proximal Tibia: Strategies to Improve Frame Stability. JOT, 17(6):415-
420, 2003.
20. Scalea TM, Boswell SA, Scott JD, Mitchell KA, Kramer ME, Pollak AN. External Fixation as a Bridge to Intramedullary Nailing for Patients with Multiple Injuries
and with Femur Fractures: Damage Control Orthopedics. J Trauma, 48(4):613-623, 2000.
21. Sirkin M, Sanders R, DiPasquale T, Herscovici, A Staged Protocol for Soft Tissue Management in the Treatment of Complex Pilon Fractures. JOT, 13(2): 78-84, 1999.
22. Yilmaz E, Belhan O, Karakurt L, Arslan N, Serin E. Mechanical performance of hybrid Ilizarov external fixator in comparison with Ilizarov circular external fixator.
Clin Biomech, 18 (6): 518, 2003.
