A radiographic and clinical comparison of reamer-irrigator-aspirator versus iliac crest bone graft in ankle arthrodesis

29Citations
Citations of this article
36Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: We evaluated radiographic fusion at follow-up and complication rates in patients who had either iliac crest (ICBG) or femoral reamer-irrigator-aspirator (RIA) bone graft for tibiotalar fusion. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts and radiographs of all patients who had a tibiotalar fusion from August 2007 to February 2011. Records were analysed for patient demographics, complications, and clinical symptoms. Radiographs were reviewed in sequential order by two fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeons and one orthopaedic surgeon who specialises in foot and ankle surgery to determine radiographic fusion at routine follow-up. Patients were contacted to determine current visual analog scores (VAS) at their graft site. Results: Mean patient age was 49.4±12.1 years in the RIA group and 49.3±15.4 years in the ICBG group (p=.97). Preoperative characteristics showed no significant differences between groups. The ICBG group had significantly more nonunions than the RIA group (six vs. one, p=0.04). Two patients in the ICBG had chronic pain at their graft site based on their VAS score; there were none in the RIA group. Radiographic fusion at follow-up was similar between groups, with no significant difference (12.48±3.85 weeks vs.12.21±3.19 weeks, p=.80). Conclusions: There was a significantly higher nonunion rate in the ICBG group, but both groups had a solid radiographic bony fusion at similar follow-up time points. Our results suggest RIA bone graft is a viable alternative to ICBG for tibiotalar fusion. © Springer-Verlag 2014.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nodzo, S. R., Kaplan, N. B., Hohman, D. W., & Ritter, C. A. (2014). A radiographic and clinical comparison of reamer-irrigator-aspirator versus iliac crest bone graft in ankle arthrodesis. International Orthopaedics, 38(6), 1199–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2348-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free