Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  19 (2024)
Volume  18 (2023)
Volume  17 (2022)
Volume  16 (2021)
Volume  15 (2020)
Volume  14 (2019)
Volume  13 (2018)
Volume  12 (2017)
Volume  11 (2016)
Volume  10 (2015)
Volume  9 (2014)
Volume  8 (2013)
Volume  7 (2012)
Volume  6 (2011)
Volume  5 (2010)
Volume  4 (2009)
Volume  3 (2008)
Volume  2 (2007)
Volume  1 (2006)
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Consent in Limb Lengthening Surgery: Predicting the True Incidence of Material Risk

Sonia Makvana, A Robertsion, S Britten, P Calder

Keywords : Complications, External fixators, Femoral lengthening, Informed consent, Intramedullary limb-lengthening system, Material risks, Tibial lengthening

Citation Information : Makvana S, Robertsion A, Britten S, Calder P. Consent in Limb Lengthening Surgery: Predicting the True Incidence of Material Risk. 2024; 19 (2):61-66.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1616

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-08-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The consent process involves supported decision-making between the surgeon and the patient. Both potential benefits and material risks of the procedure require explanation, with adequate time for reflection. The complexity of limb reconstruction surgery includes the potential for multiple types of complications. In an attempt to delineate the material risks in lower limb lengthening, a literature review was undertaken to ascertain the published rates of complications. Materials and methods: A review of articles from 2003 to 2023 via PubMed and Google Scholar, including keywords ‘lengthening’, ‘tibia’, ‘lengthening nail’ and ‘external fixator’ was undertaken. Studies with a minimum of 20 patients, undergoing lengthening of the femur, tibia, or both by an external fixator and/or an intramedullary lengthening nail were included for analysis. Complications were reported according to Paley's problems, obstacles, and complications. Results: Twenty-two papers met the inclusion criteria. The commonest complications listed following lengthening using an external fixator were pin site infections (52% in the femur and 18.8% in the tibia), delayed consolidation (8.3%), bone re-fracture (13%), and joint stiffness (18.8%). Following femoral lengthening using the intramedullary lengthening nails reported complication rates were lower, including implant issues (8%) and delayed consolidation (6%). Conclusion: Patients require a full understanding of both benefits and potential harms when undergoing any surgical intervention. Our study has identified the published rates of complications following lower limb lengthening. These figures can be used to guide the consultation and enable surgeons to audit their own surgical results against the published literature.

PDF Share
  1. Tolk JJ, Merchant R, Calder PR, et al. Tension-band plating for leg-length discrepancy correction. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2022;17(1):19. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1547.
  2. Ilizarov GA. Clinical application of the tension-stress effect for limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;250:8–26. PMID: 2403497.
  3. Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;(250):81–104. PMID: 2403498.
  4. Decision making and consent. General Medical Council 9th November 2020. Available from: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/decision-making-and-consent.
  5. Sangkaew C. Distraction osteogenesis of the femur using conventional monolateral external fixator. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008;128(9):889–899. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-007-0437-1.
  6. Gordon JE, Manske MC, Lewis TR, et al. Femoral lengthening over a pediatric femoral nail: Results and complications. J Pediatr Orthop 2013;33(7):730–736. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182a122a1.
  7. Laubscher M, Mitchell C, Timms A, et al. Outcomes following femoral lengthening: An initial comparison of the precice intramedullary lengthening nail and the LRS external fixator monorail system. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(10):1382–1388. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.36643.
  8. Simpson AH, Shalaby H, Keenan G. Femoral lengthening with the Intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91(7):955–961. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21466.
  9. Lee DH, Ryu KJ, Song HR, et al. Complications of the intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor (ISKD) in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472(12):3852–3859. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3547-4.
  10. Kirane YM, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Precision of the PRECICE internal bone lengthening nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472(12):3869–3878. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3575-0.
  11. Lecoanet P, Legallois Y, Ribes C, et al. Medium-term evaluation of leg lengthening by ISKD® intramedullary nail in 28 patients: Should we still use this lengthening system? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2020;106(7):1433–1440. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.06.007.
  12. Calder PR, McKay JE, Timms AJ, et al. Femoral lengthening using the Precice intramedullary limb-lengthening system: Outcome comparison following antegrade and retrograde nails. Bone Joint J 2019;101-B (9):1168–1176. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B9.BJJ-2018-1271.R1.
  13. Laufer A, Frommer A, Gosheger G, et al. Antegrade intramedullary femoral lengthening and distal temporary hemiepiphysiodesis for combined correction of leg length discrepancy and coronal angular deformity in skeletally immature patients. J Clin Med 2023;12(8):3022. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12083022.
  14. Rozbruch SR, Kleinman D, Fragomen AT, et al. Limb lengthening and then insertion of an intramedullary nail: A case-matched comparison. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466(12):2923–2932. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0509-8.
  15. Novikov KI, Subramanyam KN, Muradisinov SO, et al. Cosmetic lower limb lengthening by Ilizarov apparatus: What are the risks? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472(11):3549–3556. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3782-8.
  16. Borzunov DY, Balaev PI, Subramanyam KN. Reconstruction by bone transport after resection of benign tumors of tibia: A retrospective study of 38 patients. Indian J Orthop 2015;49(5):516–522. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.164042.
  17. Donnan LT, Gomes B, Donnan A, et al. Ilizarov tibial lengthening in the skeletally immature patient. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(9):1276–1282. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.37523.
  18. Jennison T, Giordmaina R, McNally M. Fibular non-union in distraction osteogenesis of the tibia. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2018;104(8):1249–1252. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.09.012.
  19. Laufer A, Frommer A, Gosheger G, et al. Reconstructive approaches in surgical management of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. J Clin Med 2020;9(12):4132. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9124132.
  20. Nguyen Van L, Le Van D. Complications and functional, psychological outcomes of bilateral tibial lengthening over intramedullary nail: Evidence from Vietnam. Int Orthop 2021;45(8):2007–2015. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-021-05059-5.
  21. Balci Hİ, Bayram S, Pehlivanoglu T, et al. Effect of lengthening speed on the quality of callus and complications in patients with congenital pseudarthrosis of tibia. Int Orthop 2021;45(6):1517–1522. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-021-05011-7.
  22. Chowdhury JMY, Ahmadi M, Prior CP, et al. Distal tibial osteotomy compared to proximal osteotomy for limb lengthening in children. Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1273–1278. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B11.BJJ-2022-0330.R1.
  23. Kenawey M, Krettek C, Liodakis E, et al. Leg lengthening using intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor: Results of 57 consecutive applications. Injury 2011;42(2):150–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.06.016.
  24. McAndrew AR, Saleh M. Limb lengthening by the Vilarrubias method: The Sheffield Children's Hospital experience. J Pediatr Orthop B 2007;16(3):233–235. DOI: 10.1097/BPB.0b013e328092565f.
  25. Kocaoğlu M, Bilen FE, Dikmen G, et al. Simultaneous bilateral lengthening of femora and tibiae in achondroplastic patients. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2014;48(2):157–163. DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2014.3274.
  26. Shabtai L, Jauregui JJ, Herzenberg JE, et al. Simultaneous bilateral femoral and tibial lengthening in achondroplasia. children (Basel) 2021;8(9):749. DOI: 10.3390/children8090749.
  27. Clearkin L. Changes to the law on consent following Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board. Br J Hospital Med 2016;77(6):355–357. DOI: 10.12968/hmed.2016.77.6.355.
  28. Case of note: McCulloch (deceased) v. Forth Valley Heath Board (supreme Court – 12th July 2023) Available from: https://resolution.nhs.uk/2023/10/19/case-of-note-mcculloch-deceased-v-forth-valley-health-board-supreme-court-12-july-2023/.
  29. Tonge XN, Crouch-Smith H, Bhalaik V, et al. Do we achieve the Montgomery standard for consent in orthopaedic surgery? Br J Hospital Med 2021;82(4):1–7. DOI: 10.12968/hmed.2020.0504.
  30. Hassell versus Hillingdon. Available from: https://www.anthonygold.co.uk/latest/blog/hassell-v-hillingdon-informed-consent-post-montgomery/.
  31. Roberts DJ, Panagiotidou A, Sewell M, et al. The incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism with the elective use of external fixators. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2015;10:67–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11751-015-0219-1.
  32. Wagner H. Operative lengthening of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res (1976–2007) 1978;136:125–142. PMID: 729276.
  33. Aston WJ, Calder PR, Baker D, et al. Lengthening of the congenital short femur using the Ilizarov technique: A single-surgeon series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91(7):962–967. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21304.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.