A Comminuted Talar Body Fracture Osteosynthesized with Bioabsorbable Screws: A Case Report

Bioabsorbable implants in foot trauma surgery

BACKGROUND

Resorbable osteosynthesis has been used in orthopaedic surgery for many years. However, indications for the use of these implants in the surgery of traumatic lesions of the foot have not yet been clearly defined. The aim of this study is to analyse reported experiences with the bioabsorbable devices and to suggest guidelines for their use in foot trauma surgery METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify known indications for the use of absorbable devices in traumatic lesions of the foot. We also conducted a retrospective analysis of our registry, reviewing patients with traumatic lesions of the foot who were treated surgically with absorbable devices from November 2005 to January 2017. To this end, we analysed for each case the indication for the use of resorbable devices and the incidence of related complications.

RESULTS

Only 14 relevant studies were found. In the selected period, 76 patients were treated using bioabsorbable devices for a traumatic lesion of the foot. Nine patients were lost to follow-up or did not satisfy the inclusion criteria. Therefore, the final size of the registry was 67 patients. The average follow-up was 20.5 months (range 6-66). All the bioabsorbable devices used were screws and bars of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA). The indications identified in the literature review and in our registry were osteosynthesis of small periarticular fragments in talus and calcaneus fractures, preliminary stabilisation of articular fragments in Sanders III calcaneal fractures and fracture-dislocations of the Lisfranc or Chopart joints. No foreign-body reactions occurred. However, in one case we registered a late mobilisation of a PLLA bar in a healed calcaneal fracture, probably as a consequence of surgical malpositioning of the device. All the operated lesions demonstrated a normal healing time, and the complication rate was comparable with those of other types of osteosynthesis.

CONCLUSION

In foot trauma surgery the use of absorbable devices can give advantages. The most clearly defined indications are osteosynthesis of peri-articular or articular fragments in talus and calcaneus fractures, Sanders III calcaneal fractures and fracture-dislocations of Lisfranc's or Chopart's joints. Foreign-body reactions are rare and seem not to present a problem.

Comparison of bioabsorbable versus metallic implant fixation for physeal and epiphyseal fractures of the distal tibia

BACKGROUND

Transepiphyseal screw fixation of displaced distal tibial epiphyseal fractures is the most common method of treatment for these intraarticular injuries. Recent literature indicates that retained transepiphyseal metallic screws cause an increase in ankle joint contact pressure, thus favoring screw removal. Our hypothesis is that bioabsorbable screw fixation is an alternative to metallic fixation, which offers similar results without the need for screw removal.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of distal tibial epiphyseal ankle fractures treated with screw fixation. Two groups, those treated with bioabsorbable screw fixation (group B, n = 24) and those with metallic screw fixation (group M, n = 26), were compared (t test) for differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

Analysis of demographic data revealed no significant differences between groups for sex, ethnicity, age, and height. Group B was significantly heavier than group M (67.4 vs 55.6 kg; P = 0.0496). Each group had a similar number of Salter-Harris types III and IV medial malleolus fractures and transitional fracture types. There was no significant difference between groups in the time from injury to fixation or in operative time. Radiographically, there were no nonunions in either group, and at final follow-up, 1 patient in group B had distal tibial joint line irregularity versus 3 in group M. Clinically, there were no significant differences between groups in time to full weight bearing or time to full activities.There were fewer complications in group B. A single case of loss of reduction requiring revision fixation occurred in each group. There was one documented growth arrest in group M and 2 suspected growth arrests in each group. Two patients in group M were successfully treated for a superficial wound infection with oral antibiotics. Fourteen patients in group M underwent planned screw removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Bioabsorbable screw fixation can be used for distal tibial epiphyseal fractures with no increase in operative time, nonunion rate, number of unplanned secondary surgeries, or other complications. The use of bioabsorbable screws eliminates the need for epiphyseal screw removal. A prospective randomized study is planned to eliminate the potential selection bias and to standardize clinical and radiographic follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

Bioabsorbable fixation in foot and ankle

Bioabsorbable implants are playing an increasing role in the surgical management of foot and ankle pathologies. Current technology allows implants to have acceptably comparable strength and pull-out characteristics to metallic implants. The advantages include elimination of secondary surgeries, biodegradability of implants placed across mobile articular surfaces, as well as acceptable biocompatibility and resorption properties to limit historical complication concerns.