Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: There were two ways of preparing the cement spacer: intracorporeal and extracorporeal formation. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of extracorporeal vs. intracorporeal formation of a spacer using the induced membrane technique (IMT) for repairing bone defects of the tibia.

Methods: Sixty-eight patients with tibial defects treated with IMT were analyzed retrospectively. According to the mode of bone cement preparation, patients were divided into intracorporeal and extracorporeal groups (36 vs. 32 respectively). All patients were followed up for 12-48 months (average 18.7 months). The time interval between the first and second stages, the time required to remove the spacer, injury of the IM or bone ends, bone healing and infection control, as well as the functional recovery (Johner-Wruhs scoring), were compared.

Results: There was no significant difference in the preoperative data between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the time interval (12.64 ± 4.41vs. 13.22 ± 4.96 weeks), infection control (26/28 vs. 20/23), bone healing time (7.47 ± 2.13vs. 7.50 ± 2.14 mos), delayed union (2/36 vs. 2/32), nonunion (2/36 vs. 1/32), an excellent or good rate of limb functional recovery (30/36 vs. 26/32) between the intracorporeal and extracorporeal groups (P > 0.05). However, the time required to remove (3.97 ± 2.34 min) was longer and the injury of IM or bone ends (28/36) was greater in the intracorporeal group than those in the extracorporeal group (0.56 ± 0.38 min and 1/32, respectively), showing a significant difference (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Both approaches were shown to have similar effects on bone defect repair and infection control. However, intracorporeal formation had advantages in terms of additional stability, while extracorporeal formation had advantages in terms of removal. Therefore, the specific method should be selected according to specific clinical needs. We recommended the extracorporeal or the modified extracorporeal formation in most cases.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9109293PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05355-0DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

intracorporeal extracorporeal
12
induced membrane
8
membrane technique
8
extracorporeal intracorporeal
8
intracorporeal formation
8
cement spacer
8
extracorporeal groups
8
time interval
8
time required
8
required remove
8

Similar Publications

Purpose: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy can be performed via intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (ICA) or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (ECA). Prior studies have emphasized ICA's advantages in hospital stay and postoperative pain. This multicenter study aimed to compare the 2-year incidence of incisional hernia between ICA (using a suprapubic Pfannenstiel incision) and ECA (using a pararectal incision) and assess perioperative outcomes.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This study aimed to elucidate the most recent evidence regarding complications, perioperative outcomes, and pathological results associated with extracorporeal urinary diversion (ECUD) in comparison to intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) during robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to facilitate this comparison. We conducted a thorough systematic review of relevant studies by systematically searching several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, to assess the implications of ICUD versus ECUD in the context of RARC.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: The safety and benefits of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICAN) in overweight and obese colon cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of ICAN compared to extracorporeal anastomosis (ECAN) in this population.

Methods: This nationwide multicenter retrospective cohort study included 46 institutions.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) for colon cancer has garnered attention owing to its minimally invasive nature and compatibility with advanced robot-assisted surgery. IA offers advantages such as smaller incisions, reduced postoperative pain, and quicker recovery. However, concerns persist in basic research regarding the increased risk of tumor cell dissemination due to IA, which may lead to peritoneal recurrence as a result of exposure of the intestinal lumen under high intra-abdominal pressure.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF