Abstract
BACKGROUND: There were two ways of preparing the cement spacer: intracorporeal and extracorporeal formation. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of extracorporeal vs. intracorporeal formation of a spacer using the induced membrane technique (IMT) for repairing bone defects of the tibia. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with tibial defects treated with IMT were analyzed retrospectively. According to the mode of bone cement preparation, patients were divided into intracorporeal and extracorporeal groups (36 vs. 32 respectively). All patients were followed up for 12-48 months (average 18.7 months). The time interval between the first and second stages, the time required to remove the spacer, injury of the IM or bone ends, bone healing and infection control, as well as the functional recovery (Johner-Wruhs scoring), were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the preoperative data between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the time interval (12.64 ± 4.41vs. 13.22 ± 4.96 weeks), infection control (26/28 vs. 20/23), bone healing time (7.47 ± 2.13vs. 7.50 ± 2.14 mos), delayed union (2/36 vs. 2/32), nonunion (2/36 vs. 1/32), an excellent or good rate of limb functional recovery (30/36 vs. 26/32) between the intracorporeal and extracorporeal groups (P > 0.05). However, the time required to remove (3.97 ± 2.34 min) was longer and the injury of IM or bone ends (28/36) was greater in the intracorporeal group than those in the extracorporeal group (0.56 ± 0.38 min and 1/32, respectively), showing a significant difference (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both approaches were shown to have similar effects on bone defect repair and infection control. However, intracorporeal formation had advantages in terms of additional stability, while extracorporeal formation had advantages in terms of removal. Therefore, the specific method should be selected according to specific clinical needs. We recommended the extracorporeal or the modified extracorporeal formation in most cases.