Platet rich plasma or hyperbaric oxygen therapy as callus accellerator in aseptic tibial non unio‎n. Evaluate of outcomes

Background and aim of the work:The incidence of long bone non-unio‎ns has been estimated to range between 5-10%. Nonunio‎n of fracture is a delayed complication of fracture. A large bone resection, associated with Ilizarov’s osteo-distraction technique, is commonly used in these cases. The war experience was very important for dealing with these injuries. The purpose of this study is to report whether the use of Platelet Rich of Plasma(PRP) or Hyperbric Oxygen Therapy(HOT) as an adjuvant to the osteogenic distrac-tion of Ilizarov with respect to the classical method has advantages. Methods: From 183 tibial non unio‎n, we enrolled 50 patients suffering by Type B according ASAMI non unio‎n classification. We divided the patients into two groups. The first group was a retrospective group of patient treated by Ilizarov Tecnique plus PRP. Instead the second group, patients were treated by Ilizarov Tecnique associated with HOT. The chosen crite-ria to evaluate the two groups during the clinical and radiological follow-up were: the complication after the surgery in the two groups; the duration of surgery; the objective quality Bone results and functional results were evaluated according to ASAMI classification while the subjective quality of life correlated with Ilizarov frame function by the Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12); The correlation between bone regenerate/bone healing and X-rays. The evaluation endpoint was set at 12 months from the remotion of Ilizarov’s frame for both groups. Results: In comparing the complications of the two populations, there were a significant statisti-cally difference(p<0.05) in the local skin inflammation and Dockin Point Skin retraction for HOT group while in refracture p<0.05 was for group PRP. From the SF-12 we discovered not statistically differences p<0.05. The average correlation between Bone Regenerate-Bone Healing/ X-rays is absolutely in the PRP as in the HOT, p>0.05. The average Time for remove Ilizarov’s Frame in months was 15.37(±7.34; range 9–32) in PRP while in HOT was15.22(± 7.83; range 9–31), p>0.05. Conclusions: From our study we can conclude that the association of HOT and PRP with the Ilizarov technique does not improve the functional outcomes but allows a more rapid healing of the regenerated bone and therefore an early removal of the device and a corresponding improvement in the quality of life. (www.actabiomedica.it)