Vascularized fibular grafts for the treatment of long bone defects: pros and cons. A systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 34110477
- DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-03962-5
Vascularized fibular grafts for the treatment of long bone defects: pros and cons. A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify union rate, complication rate, reintervention rate, as well as functional outcome after vascularized fibular bone grafts (VFGs) for the treatment of long-bone defects.
Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to August 18, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, comparative studies, and case series describing the various techniques available involving VFGs for the reconstruction of segmental long-bone defects were included. A meta-analysis was performed on union results, complications, and reinterventions. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed with the Downs and Black's "Checklist for Measuring Quality".
Results: After full-text assessment, 110 articles on 2226 patients were included. Among the retrieved studies, 4 were classified as poor, 83 as fair, and 23 as good. Overall, good functional results were documented and a union rate of 80.1% (CI 74.1-86.2%) was found, with a 39.4% (CI 34.4-44.4%) complication rate, the most common being fractures, non-unions and delayed unions, infections, and thrombosis. Donor site morbidity represented 10.7% of the total complications. A 24.6% reintervention rate was documented (CI 21.0-28.1%), and 2.8% of the patients underwent amputation.
Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis documented good long-term outcomes both in the upper and lower limb. However, VFG is a complex and demanding technique; this complexity means an average high number of complications, especially fractures, non-unions, and vascular problems. Both potential and limitations of VFG should be considered when choosing the most suitable approach for the treatment of long-bone defects.
Keywords: Bone implant; Free graft; Long-bone defects; Pedicled; VFG; Vascularized fibular grafts.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Weber KL (2005) What’s new in musculoskeletal oncology. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 87(6):1400–1410. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.e.00257 - DOI
-
- Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E (2005) Bone substitutes: an update. Injury 36(3, Supplement):S20–S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.07.029 - DOI
-
- Han CS, Wood MB, Bishop AT, Cooney WP 3rd (1992) Vascularized bone transfer. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 74(10):1441–1449 - DOI
-
- Belt PJ, Dickinson IC, Theile DR (2005) Vascularised free fibular flap in bone resection and reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 58(4):425–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2004.11.002 - DOI
-
- Wei FC, El-Gammal TA, Lin CH, Ueng WN (1997) Free fibula osteoseptocutaneous graft for reconstruction of segmental femoral shaft defects. J Trauma 43(5):784–792. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-199711000-00009 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
