Clinical value of the Taylor Spatial Frame: a comparison with the Ilizarov and Orthofix fixators

Abstract

PurposeEvaluation of the advantages and limitations of the Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) with regard to the healing index (HI), distraction–consolidation time (DCT), accuracy of correction complications, and cost of the device.MethodsComparison of results with the traditional Ilizarov apparatus and a unilateral Orthofix fixator in a consecutive patient series with 135 bony deformity corrections.ResultsThe HI did not differ significantly between all three fixators and was 57 days/cm for all patients. The DCT was significantly shorter for the TSF (148 days) compared to the Ilizarov fixator (204 days) and the Orthofix device (213 days). The accuracy of deformity correction was higher for the TSF than the other devices. The mean values of the measured angles after correction did not differ, but the variance of the results was the lowest. Also, the total rate of complications was considerably lower for the TSF. The Orthofix device showed a high rate of angular deformity during treatment, whereas both ring fixators had a relatively higher number of pin-related problems.ConclusionsThe findings in our patient series suggest the use of the Orthofix apparatus for simple lengthening over short to median distances and the Ilizarov device for the correction of simple bony deformities and pure lengthening over long distances. The TSF allows multiplanar corrections and lengthenings without complex modifications of the device. But, due to the remarkably higher costs, it has not yet been established as our routine device.Level of evidenceLevel IV—case series. Therapeutic Study—Investigating the Results of Treatment.