Bagirov A.B., Tsiskarashvili A.V., Laymuna Kh.A., Shesternya N.A., Ivannikov S.V., Zharova T.A., Suvarly P.N.

Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics,
 Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia


The modern stage of science and technology shows the improvement in methods and offers some high technologies for solving various problems and tasks [1]. In traumatology and orthopedics, the drive to using more advanced and efficient methods, schemes and technologies is fully justified [2].
The quality of life has been improving gradually, the data field has been extending, and the patients’ appetency to get modern, adequate and qualitative medical care appears [3].

The treatment of complicated fractures of pelvic and leg bones presents a serious problem in traumatology and orthopedics [4, 5]. These injuries lead to long term working incapacity and present one of the main causes of disability [6, 7].

The main difficulties in treatment of bone fractures are associated with the fact that the processes of union and recovery of function in an injured extremity segment are often complicated by contractures and deformations, osteomyelitis and extremity shortening [8].

The treatment of factures includes two main directions: internal and external osteosynthesis [9, 10]. Each of them has some positive and negative moments. Internal osteosynthesis is convenient for the patient, but uncontrollable in the postsurgical period [6]. External osteosynthesis is controllable, but uncomfortable for the patient [11-13].

– to substantiate the new modified assembles of the external fixation apparatus, which combine stability and comfort for the patient.


The main terms were used for understanding the technology of transosseous osteosynthesis: a bone, a pin or a rod, support and configuration [14, 15].
The term bone uses the following parameters: a) characteristics of a bone in place of pins or rods (cortical layer thickness and osteoporosis degree); b) sizes of bone fragments and their amount; c) lever properties of fragments [16-18].

As the element, the pins demonstrate the following characteristics: a) diameter and amount; b) strength properties during tension in the ring system; c) the variant for processing the sharp end (with the special grinding tool or the common grinding tool); d) surface type (with supporting platform or without it); e) variants of insertion (insertion through the bone or console installation) [7, 19-22].

The term rod characterizes: a) diameter, length and number; b) size of thread segment in the bone, and size of smooth part; c) a variant of processing the sharp end; d) a variant of processing the blunt end; e) depth of blades of thread, the square of its contact with bone tissue; f) direction of insertion [23].

The term support includes the characteristics: a) geometrical appearance (the ring, the semi-ring, the sector); b) the holder or the beam [24].

The term configuration combines the actions of specialists in assembling the external fixation device (with the hinge or without it), the number and variety of threading rods connecting the supports.

Depending on the segment location, characteristics and size of the bone and its fragments (the term bone), the required number and the diameter of pins and rods (the terms pin or rod) is selected; the diameter of semi-rings and sectors, the length of beams and holders (the term holder) are selected. In other words, development of the external construct for osteosynthesis corresponds
the term configuration of the external fixation device.
We think that the systematized approach to the external fixation method can promote the decrease in amount of errors at each stage of transosseous osteosynthesis.

The offered concept of external fixation devices is as described below. The devices are used in the manner when they perform their functions: stabilization of fragments in the targeted position; minimal injury to muscular mass. They have to be simple to operate. They should not hinder the radial diagnosis and they should not create any discomfort situations for the patient. Certainly, it is necessary to strive to conduct osteosynthesis in the manner that all tension forces in the device would perform the useful function and would exclude harmful tension forces.

We believe that consideration of these characteristics will favor the decrease in number of errors during each stage of transosseous osteosynthesis.

Clinically, as the support, we used the sectors, the beams, and the rods in contrast to the common configurations. The rods are introduced into the bone with use of the console.

For preventing the muscular mass damage, we introduce the pin of 3 mm diameter into the distal femoral metaphysis and into the proximal tibial epimetaphys in the frontal plane.

Certainly, the choice of configuration depends on location and biomechanical properties of the fracture site. The important stage of surgery is preliminary reposition of fragments on the orthopedic table.

The parameters of displacement of bone fragments during load were compared in the experimental study with virtual 3D-models of Ilizarov device and our configuration with use of Solid Works software and applied software. The influence of load on the elements of configuration of the device was identified, and the degree of displacement of fragments was estimated.

The statistical preparation of the results was conducted with Excel and StatSoft Statistica 6.0. For quantitative signs, the results were presented as mean arithmetic (M) and standard deviations (σ), for qualitative ones – as absolute values with percentage (%).
The critical level of significance (σ) for testing the statistical hypotheses was 0.05. Student’s test (t) for independent samples was used for comparison of intergroup differences in case of confirmation of normal distribution of the values. Differences were statistically significant with p < 0.05.
The study corresponds to Helsinki declare – Ethical Principles for Medical Research with Human Subjects, and the Rules for clinical practice in the Russian Federation confirmed by Russian Health Ministry, June 19, 2003, No.266. All persons gave their written consent for participation in the study.


Longitudinal compression between the fragments was performed for transverse fractures after precise reposition in the clinic. We think that counter-lateral compression is necessary for marginal and spiral fractures. For achieving this effect, one of the coauthors developed the device for transfocal osteosynthesis (the author's certificate 1219068, January 22, 1985) and the technique for treatment of spiral fractures (the author's certificate 1762905, May 22, 1992). The figures 1-2 show the schemes of the device for counter-lateral compression and the variants of location of pins with supporting platforms for provision of counter-lateral compression. The figures 3-7 demonstrate the efficiency of low invasive technology of configuration of the device for transosseous osteosynthesis.

Figure 1. The schemes of the device for counter-lateral compression



Figure 2. The variants of location of pins with supporting platforms for provision of counter-lateral compression



Figure 3. A spiral fracture on the border of the middle and distal one-third of the tibial bone. Time of fixation with our device is 48 days. Complete union is noted.


Figure 4. An oblique fracture in region of distal femoral epimetaphys. Time of fixation with our device is 74 days. 3 years later, control X-ray images shows complete union of the fracture, almost without signs of the previous fracture.


Figure 5

Multifragmented fracture of left femoral bone diaphysis. Osteosynthesis with the device with rods and pins. Condition after dismounting the device. Complete fracture union has been observed. Time of fixation with the device is 102 days.


Figure 6. A closed oblique fracture of tibial bone diaphysis. The external fixation device with rods and pins. X-ray images after device dismounting – complete union. Time of fixation with the device is 60 days.


Figure 7. A fragmented fracture of femoral bone diaphysis on the border of the upper and middle one-thirds. The rod-pin configuration of the device is presented. Time of fixation with the device is 82 days. X-ray images after device dismounting – complete union.


Using these principles, 148 patients with fractures of the extremity long bones were treated. The mean duration of fixation for femoral fractures was 100 days in 21 cases, for leg fractures – 93 days in 127 cases. It shows the efficiency of the used techniques of external osteosynthesis (the table).

Table. Distribution of patients according to age and time of transosseous fixation in fractures of femur and leg bones

< 20





> 60



5 (69.6)

9 (111.1)

4 (79.25)

1 (153)

2 (156.5)

1 (91)

21 (100.5)


6 (77.7)

27 (85.2)

30 (102.4)

32 (88.3)

17 (91.5)

15 (107,2)

127 (93.1)


11 (74)

35 (91.1)

34 (99.7)

33 (90.2)

19 (98.3)

16 (106.2)

148 (94.2)

Pin tract inflammation is the most common complication. The clinical manifestations are flushed skin, pain feelings and wound discharge. The treatment of these complications was mainly conducted with the conservative methods (antiseptic solutions for local administration, antibiotics), and the pins were replaced in only 8 patients, the rods – in 4 patients.
Replacement of the pins or the rods was conducted for 12 patients with disordered stability of fixation.

Pain syndrome was often identified in some patients. It was especially intense during the first days after surgery and was caused by long term walking. Pain syndrome was corrected with decreasing physical activity and prescription of analgetics.

Insignificant transitory edema was noted in almost 80 patients in early period after surgical intervention. Slow union in the fracture site of the tibial bone was noted in 18 patients, in the fracture site of the femoral bone – in 5. These patients required for stimulation of regeneration and adaptation of fragments with continuing fixation with compression mode. The patients did not demonstrate any neurovascular disorders during insertion of the pins or the rods. The best tolerability of the external fixation device promoted the decrease in the patients’ negative attitude to this technique.


The use of the developed configuration of the external fixation device allows achieving the union of the long bones fractures of the lower extremities within the optimal time intervals and providing more comfort life of the patient.

Information on financing and conflict of interests

The study was conducted without sponsorship.
The authors declare the absence of clear or potential conflicts of interests relating to publishing this article.


1.  Blachut PA, Meek RN, O’Brien PJ. External fixation and delayed intramedullary nailing of open fractures of the tibial shaft. A sequential protocol. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(5): 729-735
2.  Shesternya NA. Modern traumatology and orthopedics: actual problems, perspectives, solutions in theory and practice. M.: Soyuzmedinform, 1991. 103 p. Russian (Шестерня Н.А. Современная травматология и ортопедия: Актуальные проблемы, перспективы, решения в теории и практике. М.: НПО Союзмединформ, 1991. 103 с.)
3.  Khan MS, Rashid H, Umer M, Qadir I, Hafeez K, Iqbal A. Salvage of infected non-union of the tibia with an Ilizarov ring fixator. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015; 23(1): 52-55
4.  Dendrinos GK, Kontos S, Lyritsis E. Use of the Ilizarov technique for treatment of non-union of the tibia associated with infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995; 77(6): 835-846
5.  Golubovic I, Vukasinovic Z, Stojiljkovic P, Golubovic Z, Stamenic S, Najman S. Open segmental fractures of the tibia treated by external fixation. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2012; 140(11-12): 732-737
6.  Kavalerskiy GM et al. Two-staged treatment of severe opened fractures of the leg. In: The collection of abstracts of IXth congress of traumatologists and orthopedists of Russia. Saratov, 2010. P. 155-156. Russian (Кавалерский Г.М и др. Двухэтапное лечение тяжелых открытых переломов голени //Сборник тезисов IX Съезда травматологов ортопедов России. Саратов, 2010. С. 155-156)
7.  Shevtsov VI. About new technological approaches in traumatology and orthopedics from perspective of transosseous fixation. In: The Collection of Abstracts of VIIIth Conference of Traumatologists-Orthopedists of Russia. Samara, 2006. Vol. 1. P. 363-364. Russian (Шевцов В.И. О новых технологических подходах в травматологии и ортопедии с позиции чрескостного остеосинтеза // Сборник тезисов докладов VIII съезда травматологов-ортопедов России. Самара, 2006. Т. 1. С. 363-364)
8.  Aslan A, Uysal E, Ozmeriç A. A staged surgical treatment outcome of type 3 open tibial fractures. ISRN Orthop. 2014; 2014: 721041
9.  Mudiganty S, Daolagupu AK, Sipani AK, Das SK, Dhar A, Gogoi PJ. Treatment of infected non-unions with segmental defects with a rail fixation system. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2017; 12(1): 45-51
10. Barbarossa V, Matković BR, Vucić N, Bielen M, Gluhinić M. Treatment of osteomyelitis and infected non-union of the femur by a modifiedIlizarov technique: follow-up study. Croat Med J. 2001; 42(6): 634-641
11. Ilizarov GA. Clinical possibilities of our method. In: Experimental, theoretical and clinical aspects of the transosseous fixation technique developed in KNII: the materials of the international symposium. Kurgan, 1984. P. 49-57. Russian (Илизаров Г.А. Клинические возможности нашего метода //Экспериментально-теоритические и клинические аспекты разрабатываемого в КНИИЭКОТ метода чрескостного остеосинтеза: материалы всезоюз. симпозиума с международным участием. Курган, 1984. С. 49-57)
12. Naveed W, Asif B, Khurshid K, Mohammad M. Role of early Ilizarov ring fixator in the definitive management of type II, IIIA and IIIB open tibial shaft fractures. International Orthopaedics (SICOT). 2011; 35: 915-923
13. Ring D, Jupiter JB, Gan BS, Israeli R, Yaremchuk MJ. Infected nonunion of the tibia. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1999; (369): 302-311
14. Kaplunov OA. Ilizarov transosseous fixation in traumatology and orthopedics. M.: GEOTAR-MED, 2002. 301 p. Russian (Каплунов О.А. Чрескостный остеосинтез по Илизарову в травматологии и ортопедии. М.: ГЭОТАР-МЕД, 2002. 301 с.)
15. Li AD, Bashirov RS. The manual for transosseous compression distraction fixation. Tomsk, 2002; 307. Russian (Ли А.Д., Баширов Р.С. Руководство по чрескостному компрессионно-дистракционному остеосинтезу. Томск, 2002. 307 с.)
16. Makushin VD. Modelling of conditions of effectiveness of joint of fragments in compression fixation. In: The materials of 24th scientific practical conference of doctors of Kurgan region. Kurgan, 1992. P. 69-70. Russian (Макушин В.Д. Моделирование условий устойчивости стыка отломков при компрессионном остеосинтезе //Материалы XXIV научно-практической конференции врачей Курганской области. Курган, 1992. C. 69-70)
17. Nazarov VA. Biomechanical foundations of module configuration of devices for transosseous fixation of long bones: abstracts of candidates of medical sciences. St. Petersburg, 2006. 22 p. Russian (Назаров В.А. Биомеханические основы модульной компоновки аппаратов для чрескостного остеосинтеза длинных трубчатых костей: автореф. дис. … канд. мед. наук. СПб., 2006. 22 с.)
18. Pichkhadze IM, Urazgildeev ZI, Kuzmenkov KA, Tsiskarashvili AV. Stable fixation of fractures of long bones as prevention and treatment of infectious complications. In: Modern Technologies in Traumatology and Orthopedics: the Collection of Abstracts of All-Russian Scientific Practical Conference. M., 2005. 283 p. Russian (Пичхадзе И.М., Уразгильдеев З.И., Кузьменков К.А., Цискарашвили А.В. Стабильный остеосинтез при переломах длинных костей как профилактика и лечение инфекционных осложнений //Современные технологии в травматологии и ортопедии: сборник тезисов всероссийской научно-практической конференции. М., 2005. С. 283.)
19. Solomin LN. The foundations of transosseous fixation with Ilizarov device. St. Petersburg, 2005. 544 p. Russian (Соломин Л.Н. Основы чрескостного остеосинтеза аппаратом Г.А. Илизарова. СПб., 2005. 544 с.)
20. Tsiskarashvili AV, Pichkhadze RM, Kuzmenkov KA. The role of stable fixation for treatment of fractures complicated by purulent fixation on the basis of biomechanical concept of fixation of fragments. In: Modern Technologies in Traumatology and Orthopedics: the Collection of Abstracts of All-Russian Scientific Practical Conference. M., 2005. P. 371-373. Russian (Цискарашвили А.В., Пичхадзе Р.М., Кузьменков К.А. Роль стабильного остеосинтеза при лечении переломов осложненных гнойной инфекцией на основе биомеханической концепции фиксации отломков //Современные технологии в травматологии и ортопедии: сборник тезисов всероссийской научно-практической конференции. М., 2005. С. 371-373)
21. Traumatology and Orthopedics: the Manual for Doctors in 3 volumes. Edited by Shaposhnikov YuG. M., 1997. 255 p. Russian (Травматология и Ортопедия: руководство для врачей в 3-х томах /под ред. Ю.Г. Шапошникова. М., 1997. 255 c.)
22. Shesternya NA, Ivannikov SV, Makarova EV. The block for polyfascicular fixation: the patent of RF, No.130215 / No.2013110033/14; the application from March 6, 2013; published on July 20, 2013, Bulletin No.20. Russian (Шестерня Н.А., Иванников С.В, Макарова Е.В. Блок для полифасцикулярного остеосинтеза: патент РФ №130215 / № 2013110033/14; заявл. 06.03.2013; опубл. 20.07.2013, Бюл. № 20)
23. Xu X, Li X, Liu L, Wu W. A meta-analysis of external fixator versus intramedullary nails for open tibial fracture fixation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014; 9(1): 75
24. Wu CC. Single-stage surgical treatment of infected nonunion of the distal tibia. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 2011; 25(3):156-161

Статистика просмотров

Загрузка метрик ...


  • На текущий момент ссылки отсутствуют.