| Literature DB >> 25038620 |
Meng-Hsuan Lee, Chien-Jen Hsu, Kai-Cheng Lin, Jenn-Huei Renn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tibial plateau fracture (TPF) includes different fracture patterns with varied degrees of articular depression and displacement. Many kinds of fixators, including newly designed plate with locking screws, were applied to treat these complicated fractures. We intended to follow up the surgical outcomes of (1) unilateral locking plate, (2) classic dual plates, or (3) hybrid dual plates for TPF.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25038620 PMCID: PMC4223614 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0062-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Figure 1Number of patients in this study.
Demographic data of the patients with bicondylar tibial plateau fractures ( = 45)
| Case number | 15 | 19 | 11 |
| Male/female ratio | 5/10 | 11/8 | 5/6 |
| Mean agea (years) (range) | 49.1 ± 13.4 (18 ~ 83) | 53.6 ± 14.8 (18 ~ 76) | 51.8 ± 17.0 (22 ~ 81) |
| Injured limb (right/left) | 9/6 | 9/10 | 4/7 |
| Trauma mechanism (TA/fall) | 13/2 | 16/3 | 9/2 |
| Schatzker classification£ (V/VI) | 8/7 | 13/6 | 4/7 |
aExamined by one-way independent ANOVA test. The others were examined by the chi-square test. £p < 0.05, statistically significant difference between the compared groups, ULP unilateral locking plate, CDP classic dual plate, HDP hybrid dual plate, TA traffic accident.
Perioperative parameters and postoperative functional scores in each group of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures (total = 45)
| Operation time£ (min) | 76.6 ± 14.73 (50 ~ 145) | 101.4 ± 18.23 (60 ~ 160) | 92.8 ± 17.96 (55 ~ 150) |
| Blood loss (ml) | 69.3 ± 14.36 (30 ~ 180) | 100.1 ± 24.63 (40 ~ 350) | 82.7 ± 24.31(40 ~ 250) |
| Staged Tx (ESF → IF)a,£ | 20% (3/15) | 21.1% (4/19) | 45.5% (5/11) |
| Hospitalization period£ (days) | 9.3 ± 4.27 (5 ~ 26) | 15.6 ± 8.71 (7 ~ 51) | 14.8 ± 5.52 (6 ~ 43) |
| Post-OP alignment (degree) | 87.9 ± 6.4 (76 ~ 99) | 87.0 ± 3.9 (75 ~ 93.4) | 85.1 ± 7.3 (74 ~ 95) |
| Union ratea | 86.7% (13/15) | 78.9% (15/19) | 90.9% (10/11) |
| Functional outcome (WOMAC 0 ~ 96) | 36.5 ± 5.88 (7 ~ 66) | 34.1 ± 4.91 (6 ~ 61) | 32.8 ± 5.02 (7 ~ 59) |
| Pain 0 ~ 20 | 5.4 ± 2.31 (0 ~ 12) | 4.9 ± 2.06 (0 ~ 13) | 4.5 ± 1.8 (1 ~ 11) |
| Stiffness 0 ~ 8 | 4.8 ± 1.68 (0 ~ 7) | 4.3 ± 1.21 (0 ~ 6) | 4.1 ± 1.83 (0 ~ 6) |
| Physical function 0 ~ 68 | 26.3 ± 5.74 (4 ~ 50) | 24.9 ± 4.82 (4 ~ 49) | 24.2 ± 6.44 (3 ~ 42) |
aExamined by the chi-square test. The others were examined by the one-way independent ANOVA test. £p < 0.05, statistically significant difference between the compared groups. ULP unilateral locking plate, CDP classic dual plate, HDP hybrid dual plate, Tx treatment, ESF external skeletal fixation, IF internal fixation.
Complications after surgical intervention for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures
| Infection | | | | |
| Deep | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.792 |
| Cellulitis | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0.328 |
| Stiffness (<90° flexion) | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0.651 |
| Posttraumatic arthritis | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0.267 |
| Malunion | | | | |
| Angulation (>5°) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.515 |
| Joint depression (>2 mm) | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0.449 |
| Non-union | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0.373 |
| Hardware impingement | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0.021* |
| Re-fracture | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.603 |
| Implant failure | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.584 |
All examined by the chi-square test. ULP unilateral locking plate, CDP classic dual plate, HDP hybrid dual plate. *p < 0.05, statistically significant difference between the compared groups.
Post-hoc analysis of the three groups fixed with different implants
| Schatzker classificationa (V/VI) | ns | ns | |
| Operation time (min) | ns | ||
| Staged Tx (ESF → IF)a | ns | ||
| Hospitalization period (days) | ns | ||
| Hardware impingementa | ns |
aExamined by the chi-square test. The others were examined by the one-way independent ANOVA test. p < 0.05, statistically significant difference. ns not significant, ULP unilateral locking plate, CDP classic dual plate, HDP hybrid dual plate, Tx treatment, ESF external skeletal fixation, IF internal fixation.
Figure 2Illustrative cases of group I, treated with unilateral locking plate (ULP). (A) A 39-year-old female sustained a left knee tibial plateau fracture (TPF), Schatzker classification type VI, and she was subsequently treated with a unilateral locking plate as shown. (B) An 18-year-old female sustained right knee Schatzker type VI TPF after being in a motor vehicle accident. She subsequently received ORIF with ULP. (C) A 51-year-old male sustained left knee Schatzker type V TPF with dislocation after being in a crash accident. He then received ORIF with ULP.
Figure 3Illustrative cases of group II, treated with classic dual plates (CDP). (A) A 49-year-old man sustained right knee TPF, Schatzker classification type V, after being in a motor vehicle crash. ORIF with CDP was demonstrated. (B) A 47-year-old woman sustained left knee Schatzker type V TPF after being in a falling accident. She subsequently received ORIF with CDP. (C) A 60-year-old man sustained left knee Schatzker type VI TPF. He received ORIF with CDP thereafter.
Figure 4Illustrative cases of group III, treated with hybrid dual plates (HDP). (A) A 76-year-old man suffered from left knee TPF, Schatzker classification type VI, after a slithering accident, and he subsequently received ORIF with HDP. (B) A 43-year-old woman sustained right knee Schatzker type V TPF after being in a motor vehicle crash. She received ORIF with HDP thereafter. (C) A 19-year-old man suffered from right knee Schatzker type VI TPF in a car crash. ORIF with HDP was demonstrated.