A comparative study of the effect of early versus late dynamization of external fixator in the treatment of compound fracture of tibia: a non-randomized controlled trial

Bojum Leya; Sanjib Waikhom; Vikash Kumar; Hemam Chittaranjan Singh

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20263906

Authors

Bojum Leya Department of Orthopedics, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Sanjib Waikhom Department of Orthopedics, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Vikash Kumar Department of Orthopedics, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Hemam Chittaranjan Singh Department of Orthopedics, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20263906

Keywords:

External fixation, Fracture union, Tibial fracture, Dynamization, Early dynamization, Functional outcome

Abstract

Background: Dynamization is commonly employed to enhance fracture healing following stabilization with external fixators or intramedullary nails. However, the optimal timing of dynamization remains controversial, with limited consensus in clinical practice. The aim was to compare the radiological and functional outcomes of early versus late dynamization in patients with tibial fractures treated using external fixation and to determine the optimal timing for dynamization.

Methods: This prospective comparative study included 36 patients with open tibial fractures managed with external fixation. Patients were equally divided into two groups: group I (early dynamization, initiated at 2-4 weeks postoperatively) and group II (late dynamization, initiated at or after 4 weeks). Patients were followed up for fracture union, time to union, complications, pain, range of motion, need for secondary procedures, and functional outcome using the Baird and Jackson scoring system. Statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the two groups.

Results: Fracture union was achieved in 94.4% of patients in the early dynamization group compared to 72.2% in the late dynamization group. The mean time to union was significantly shorter in group I (12.65±5.49 weeks) than in group II (18.46±4.61 weeks; p=0.005). Complication rates, including pin tract infection and limb shortening, were lower in the early dynamization group. Functional outcomes were favorable in both groups; however, excellent Baird and Jackson scores were more frequent in the early dynamization group. Pain relief and restoration of joint range of motion were achieved earlier in patients undergoing early dynamization.

Conclusions: Early dynamization within four weeks of surgery results in faster fracture union and better functional outcomes compared to late dynamization. Early dynamization should be considered the preferred strategy in the management of tibial fractures treated with external fixation.

References

Hu M, Zeng W, Zhang J, Feng Y, Ma L, Huang F, et al. Fixators dynamization for delayed union and non-union of femur and tibial fractures: a review of techniques, timing and influence factors. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):1-12.

Schultz BJ, Koval K, Salehi PP, Gardner MJ, Cerynik DL. Controversies in fracture healing: early versus late dynamization. Orthopedics. 2020;43(3):125-33.

Linn MS, McAndrew CM, Prusaczyk B, Brimmo O, Ricci WM, Gardner MJ. Dynamic locked plating of distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(10):447-50.

Han Z, Wu J, Deng G, Bi C, Wang J, Wang Q. Axial micromotion locking plate construct can promote faster and stronger bone healing in an ovine osteotomy model. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;8:9p.

Foxworthy M, Pringle RM. Dynamization timing and its effect on bone healing when using the Orthofix Dynamic Axial Fixator. Injury. 1995;26(2):117-9.

Sun Y, Wan B, Wang R, Zhang B, Luo P, Wang D, et al. Mechanical stimulation on mesenchymal stem cells and surrounding microenvironments in bone regeneration: regulations and applications. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2022;10:1-17.

Steward AJ, Kelly DJ. Mechanical regulation of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation. J Anat. 2015;227(6):717-31.

Hente R, Cordey J, Rahn BA, Maghsudi M, von Gumppenberg S, Perren SM. Fracture healing of the sheep tibia treated using a unilateral external fixator. Comparison of static and dynamic fixation. Injury. 1999;30(Suppl 1):44-51.

Durall I, Falcón C, Díaz-Bertrana MC, Franch J. Effects of static fixation and dynamization after interlocking femoral nailing locked with an external fixator: an experimental study in dogs. Vet Surg. 2004;33(4):323-32.

Gorman SC, Kraus KH, Keating JH, Tidwell AS, Rand WM, Parkington JD, et al. In vivo axial dynamization of canine tibial fractures using the Securos external skeletal fixation system. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2005;18(4):199-207.

Claes L, Blakytny R, Besse J, Bausewein C, Ignatius A, Willie B. Late dynamization by reduced fixation stiffness enhances fracture healing in a rat femoral osteotomy model. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(3):169-74.

Einhorn TA, Gerstenfeld LC. Fracture healing: mechanisms and interventions. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11(1):45-54.

Singh A, Kumar R, Ranjan R, Mahajan A. Dynamization of external fixator is single stage definitive procedure for open fractures both bone leg. Int J Res Orthop. 2017;3:1152-6.

Perumal R, Shankar V, Basha R, Jayaramaraju D, Rajasekaran S. Is nail dynamization beneficial after twelve weeks- an analysis of 37 cases. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9(4):322-6.

Kulshrestha V, Roy T, Audige L. Dynamic versus static external fixation of distal radial fractures: A randomized study. Indian J Orthop. 2011;45(6):527-34.

Barquet A, Massaferro J, Dubra A, Milans C, Castiglioni O. The dynamic ASIF-BM tubular external fixator in the treatment of open fractures of the shaft of the tibia. Injury. 1992;23(7):461-6.

Noordeen MH, Lavy CB, Shergill NS, Tuite JD, Jackson AM. Cyclical micromovement and fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(4):645-8.

Singh A, Kumar R, Ranjan R, Mahajan A. Dynamization of external fixator is single stage definitive procedure for open fractures both bone leg. Int J Res Orthop. 2017;3:1152-6.

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. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;388:240-51.

Egger EL, Histand MB, Norrdin RW, Konde LJ, Schwarz PD. Canine osteotomy healing when stabilized with decreasingly rigid fixation compared to constantly rigid fixation. VCOT. 1996;06:182-7.

Goodship AE, Kenwright J. The influence of induced micromovement upon the healing of experimental tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67(4):650-5.

Takeda T, Narita T, Ito H. Experimental study on the effect of mechanical stimulation on the early stage of fracture healing. J Nippon Med Sch. 2004;71:252-62.

Bottlang M, Feist F. Biomechanics of far cortical locking. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(Suppl 1):S21-8.

Aro HT, Kelly PJ, Lewallen DG, Chao EY. The effects of physiologic dynamic compression on bone healing under external fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(256):260-73.