Abstract
Integrated limb lengthening combines both internal and external fixation methods. It has been introduced to improve time to union, patient time in frame, risk of regenerate refracture, and patient function. We systematically review studies to assess whether integrated limb lengthening methods are superior to classic limb lengthening. METHODS: A total of 457 patients had classic limb lengthening, whereas 488 underwent integrated limb lengthening. The primary outcome measures were total length achieved (cm), external fixator index (month/cm) and bone healing index (month/cm). Problems, obstacles, and sequelae were compared using random effects meta-analyses of all available cases. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare the time spent in frame. RESULTS: Integrated limb lengthening demonstrated a superior external fixator index (P = 0.0001) and bone healing index (P = 0.0146). The mean time spent in frame for integrated lengthening was significantly shorter (P = 0.0015). Significantly fewer problems (P = 0.000) and sequelae (P = 0.001) were observed with integrated lengthening. Deep infections were more common in the integrated cohort. The lengthening over a nail deep infection rate was significantly higher than with the lengthening and then nailing and lengthening and then plating techniques (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Integrated methods of limb lengthening are superior to classic methods. We suggest the integration of plates and nails with circular frames to improve outcomes in patients undergoing limb lengthening procedures.