Uniplanar Versus Taylor Spatial Frame External Fixation For Pediatric Diaphyseal Tibia Fractures: A Comparison of Cost and Complications

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and cost variations between uniplanar (UNI) and Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) external fixation for unstable pediatric tibial diaphyseal fractures. METHODS We performed an IRB approved, retrospective review of 44 diaphyseal tibial fractures in 42 children treated with external fixation (16 TSF and 28 UNI) between 2003 and 2011, at a single level 1 pediatric trauma center. Data on demographic, clinical, radiographic, treatment cost, and complication differences were analyzed between the 2 groups. The Student t tests, Fisher's exact tests, χ trend tests, logistic regression, and a cost analysis comparison was used to assess the differences. RESULTS The mean age in both groups was 13 years (range: 6 to 18 y TSF, 9 to 17 y UNI). The mean follow-up was 8 months (TSF) and 13 months (UNI). According to the AO classification, there were 28 type A, 13 type B, and 3 type C fractures with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P=0.69). Total time in the fixator was not different between the 2 groups (UNI 14 wk, TSF 12 wk, P=0.10), but time to union was less in the TSF group (UNI 16 wk, TSF 13 wk, P