Prospective multicenter study evaluates a new algorithm's outcomes for tibial non-union management in low-resource settings, suggesting high success rates.
Objectives: We aimed to describe the epidemiological profile of tibial non-unions in our context and to evaluate outcomes achieved using a standardized algorithm adapted to limited-resource settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study from January 2017 to December 2021 that included all patients ≥16 years of age treated for tibial non-union and followed for at least 12 months. Septic non-unions and defects >10 cm were excluded. Management was based on a predefined algorithm that integrated the Weber-Cech classification and the Catagni bone-loss classification, accounting for septic status, biological vitality, and defect size. Aseptic non-unions were treated by Judet periosteal decortication, with or without bone grafting. Septic or bone-loss cases underwent staged treatment with radical debridement, targeted antibiotics, and reconstruction by bone grafting, induced membrane technique, or intertibio-fibular grafting. Results: Among 517 tibial fractures treated, 115 non-unions were identified (18.5%); 104 were analyzed. The mean age was 35.5 years. Forty-nine cases (47.1%) were aseptic, and 55 (52.9%) were septic. Vital non-unions accounted for 66.6%. After a mean follow-up of 16.8 months, union was achieved in 101 patients (97.1%). Persistent infection occurred in three immunocompromised HIV-positive patients. According to the Association for the Study and Application of the Ilizarov method, bone consolidation was excellent or good in 91.3% of cases, and functional results were excellent or good in 81.7% of cases. No amputations were required. Conclusion: Even in low-resource environments, strict adherence to a codified algorithm is associated with high union rates and favorable functional outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koné et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: