Material and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in our department from the data collected in the period between 1997 and 2010. There were 86 cases of infected non-union of the tibia, in patients of the age group 18 to 65 years, with a minimum two-year follow-up. Group A consisted of cases treated by ASRL (n=46), and Group B, of cases by IBT (n=40). The non-union following both open and closed fractures had been treated by plate osteosynthesis, intra-medullary nails and primary Ilizarov fixators. Radical debridement was done and fragments stabilised with ring fixators. The actual bone gap and limb length discrepancy were measured on the operating table after debridement. In ASRL acute docking was done for defects up to 3cm, and subacute docking for bigger gaps. Corticotomy was done once there was no infection and distraction started after a latency of seven days. Dynamisation was followed by the application of a patellar tendon bearing cast for one month after removal of the ring with the clinico-radiological union.
Results: The bone loss was 3 to 8cm (4.77±1.43) in Group A and 3 to 9cm (5.31± 1.28) in Group B after thorough debridement. Bony union, eradication of infection and primary soft- tissue healing was 100%, 85% and 78% in Group A and 95%, 60%, 36% in Group B respectively. Nonunion at docking site, equinus deformity, false aneurysm, interposition of soft-tissue, transient nerve palsies were seen only in cases treated by IBT.
Conclusion: IBT is an established method to manage gap non-union of the tibia. In our study, complications were significantly higher in cases where IBT was employed. We, therefore, recommend ASRL with an established protocol for better results in terms of significantly less lengthening index, eradication of infection, and primary soft tissue healing. ASRL is a useful method to bridge the bone gap by making soft tissue and bone reconstruction easier, eliminating the disadvantages of IBT.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted between Oct 2010 to Dec 2015. One-hundred-fifty fracture shafts of the humerus were treated with the anteromedial plating through the anterolateral approach.
Results: One-hundred-fifty patients with a fracture shaft of the humerus were treated with anteromedial plating. Twenty were female (mean ±SD,28 years±4.5) and 130 were male (mean ± SD, 38 years±5.6). One hundred and forty-eight out of 150 (98.6%) patients achieved union at 12 months. Two of three patients developed a superficial infection, both of which were treated successfully by antibiotics and one developed a deep infection, which was treated by wound debridement, prolonged antibiotics with the removal of the plate and subsequently by delayed plating and bone grafting.
Conclusion: In the present study, we applied plate on the anteromedial flat surface of humerus using the anterolateral approach. It is an easier and quicker fixation as compared to anterolateral plating because later involved much more dissection than a medial application of the plate and this application of plate on a medial flat surface, does not required Radial nerve exposure and palsy post-operatively. The significant improvement in elbow flexion without brachialis dissection is also a potential benefit of this approach. Based on our results, we recommend the application of an anteromedial plate for treatment of midshaft fractures humerus.
METHODS: A 56-year-old female presented with a 3-month history of blood-stained nasal discharge. She had been treated with radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma 25 years earlier. Flexible nasal endoscopy demonstrated an exposed bone with an edematous posterior nasopharyngeal mass. Computed tomography showed a pre-vertebral mass with destruction of C1 and C2. She underwent occipito-cervical fusion followed by a combined transnasal and transoral endoscopic debridement of non-viable bone in the same perioperative setting. Healing of the raw mucosa was by secondary intention and reconstruction was not performed.
RESULTS: Histopathological examination reported ulcerated inflamed granulation tissue with no evidence of malignancy. During follow-up, she remained neurologically intact with no recurrence.
CONCLUSION: Using both nasal and oral spaces allows placement of the endoscope in the nasal cavity and surgical instruments in the oral cavity without splitting the palate. Hence, the endoscopic transnasal and transoral approach has vast potential to be effective in carefully selected cases of cervical ORN.