• Users Online: 149
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 98-109

Acquired long bone defects classifications: Literature review (Part II – long bone defects around the joint)


1 Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Moscow City Clinical Hospital #13, 1/1 Velozavodskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation
2 Department of Military Traumatology and Orthopedics, S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, 13 Botkinskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
3 Limb Lengthening and Complex Reconstruction Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA
4 Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics, 8 Akademik Baykov str.; Chair of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, 2 Litovskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Anton A Semenistyy
Inozemcev Moscow City Clinical Hospital, Fortunatovskaya Street 1, Moscow 105187
Russian Federation
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jllr.jllr_28_21

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: In recent years, multiple classifications of long bone defects around the joint (LBDAJ) have been proposed. However, there is no universal clinical classification of LBDAJ to date. Through comprehensive literature review, we aim to identify the criteria that may be used to develop a future universal classification of LBDAJ. Materials and Methods: We performed a comprehensive review of the literature to identify all articles describing classification systems of LBDAJ in both native and prosthetic joints. Two reviewers searched the following electronic databases independently: The Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group, MEDLINE, and eLibrary. Studies investigating bone defects around the joint reporting a classification or any criteria to classify bone defects were included in this review. All studies not related to bone articular surfaces were excluded. Results: A total of 15 classifications for LBDAJ in the preserved joint were. Most systems considered the size of bone defect as a key criterion for clinical decision-making. A total of 31 classifications for periprosthetic bone defects related to hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty were identified. The following criteria were used by different authors to classify periprosthetic bone defects: Location (n = 22), size (n = 20), containment (n = 9), discontinuity (n = 6), shape or geometrical characteristics of the defect (n = 4), fracture (n = 2), and deformity. Conclusion: Despite the large variety of the existing classifications of bone defects around the joint, there is no classification that could be considered universal. For the development of a future universal classification, defect location, size, and containment are likely to be the main factors to consider as important.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed34    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal