BACKGROUND:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction commonly uses a hamstring tendon autograft, but the peroneus longus tendon can also be used. This study aimed to compare outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in 106 patients using peroneus longus tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. MATERIAL AND METHODS:ACL repair was performed on 54 patients using a hamstring tendon autograft and 52 patients with a peroneus longus tendon autograft. Knee function was assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, while the ankle was evaluated using the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) and the Foot & Ankle Disability Index (FADI) scores. Donor-site morbidity and graft characteristics were compared. RESULTS:There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of knee IKDC and Lysholm scores (p=0.49, p=0.68, respectively). The diameter of the peroneus longus tendon graft (8.56±0.93) was significantly larger than the hamstring tendon (7.44±0.6) (p<0.001). The peroneus graft harvesting time was significantly shorter (p<0.001). Thigh hypotrophy and donor-site morbidity were significantly higher in the hamstring group (p<0.001 and p=0.006). The donor ankle AOFAS score was 93.46±3.8, and the FADI score was 93.48±4.6. No morbidity associated with the peroneus longus graft was observed. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using the peroneus longus tendon experienced faster knee rehabilitation and less donor-site morbidity, such as thigh hypotrophy and knee pain. The peroneus longus tendon, with its larger diameter, fewer graft-related complications, and similar knee scores compared to the hamstring group, is considered a suitable alternative graft source.

Joint Diseases and Related Surgery (JDRS), the official journal of the Turkish Joint Diseases Foundation, is an international, peer-reviewed, immediate open access journal. All published articles in JDRS has been free for everyone, without embargo, since 1990.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the clinical, radiological, and functional results of patients treated with FITBONE or PRECICE nails due to deformity and length discrepancy in their lower extremities. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 41 patients with length discrepancy and deformity in their lower extremities, who underwent limb lengthening surgery with either FITBONE (group F) or PRECICE (group P) nails between 2010 and 2020. The mean postoperative follow-up period was 15.95 ± 4.75 months in group F (20 patients) and 20.48 ± 7.57 months in group P (21 patients). Lower extremity mechanical and anatomical axes were measured on x-rays preoperatively and at the end of treatment. Consolidation and distraction indexes were also calculated to assess bone healing. Lower Extremity Functional Scale test was used to evaluate functional outcomes and quality of life. Results: Neither of the treatment methods caused deviations in the mechanical axes and femoral distal angles (P > .05). No statistically significant difference in consolidation and distraction indexes was found between the groups (P > .05). Postoperative complications were seen in 3 of the patients in group F and 4 of the patients from group P. There was no significant difference in Lower Extremity Functional Scale scores between groups (P = .425). Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that treatment with both the FITBONE and PRECICE nails resulted in improved physical and emotional functional outcomes. Both nails had similar radiographic results, complication rates, high patient compliance, and good cosmesis. Level of Evidence: Level III, Therapeutic Study. Cite this article as: Safi İKA, Samadov F, Kanar M, Tüter İ, Özdemir HM. Deformity correction and limb lengthening with externally controlled motorized extendable intramedullary nails: Comparison of 2 different nails. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc., 2023;57(4):169-175.

The Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, clinical outcomes, and complications of cable-asisted bone transport (CASt) and circular external fixator-assisted bone transport (CEFt) methods in the management of bone defects of the tibia. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 32 patients who underwent segmental bone transport for tibial bone defects between January 2006 and January 2020 and met the study inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized into two groups: CASt group (n = 16) and CEFt group (n = 16). The primary outcome measures included radiological parameters (External Fixator Index (EFI), Radiological Consolidation Time (RCT), and Radiological Consolidation Index (RCI)), functional independence (Lower Extremity Functional Index, LEFI) and functional outcomes (ASAMI Bone and Functional Scores). Secondary outcomes included pain levels (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), and complication rates (Paley's and Checketts-Otterburn classifications). The CASt method resulted in significantly reduced pain scores during distraction (VAS: 4.81 ± 0.98 vs. 6.75 ± 0.86; p = 0.001). Pin-tract infection rates were significantly lower in the CASt group compared to the CEFt group (50% vs. 93.8%; p = 0.013). There was no significant difference between the groups in radiological (EFI, RCT, RCI) and functional outcomes (ASAMI scores) (p > 0.05). Both CASt and CEFt methods are effective and reliable options in the management of bone defects of the tibia. However, CASt offers advantages such as lower pin-tract infection rates and less pain during distraction, resulting in greater patient comfort and compliance. Given its less invasive nature, CASt may be preferable in patients at higher risk of infection or with a low pain threshold. However, the technical complexity of this method requires experienced surgical application.