Vito Conserva1, Giovanni Vicenti2, Giovanni Allegretti1, Marco Filipponi3, Alessandra Monno1, Girolamo Picca1, Biagio Moretti1. 1. Department of Neuroscience and Organs of Sense, Orthopedics Section, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Bari, Policlinico, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. 2. Department of Neuroscience and Organs of Sense, Orthopedics Section, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Bari, Policlinico, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. Electronic address: dott.gvicenti@gmail.com. 3. Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department - Vito Fazzi Hospital, Lecce, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Management of complex tibial plateau fractures can be challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. Wide disagreement still remains about the best surgical technique to use in these fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of complex tibial plateau fractures treated by an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus hybrid external fixation (EF) in term of clinical and functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined a series of 79 patients affected by tibial plateau fractures admitted at our Department between January 2006 and November 2011. Forty-one patients were treated using a hybrid EF; in 38 cases, ORIF technique was used. Clinical evaluation was performed using the method of Rasmussen; functional assessment was made using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Residual pain was detected using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). RESULTS: The average time to union in the plate group was 17.2 weeks (9.1-45 weeks), while in the EF one 15.9 (7.5-32). The mean overall hospital stay was 14.2 days for the ORIF group and 7.8 for the EF group. At the last follow-up, the mean Rasmussen score was 24.9 (good) in the patients treated with ORIF and 25 (good) in those who received EF. The WOMAC index disclosed a relatively higher score in the EF group (80.5 ORIF-84.2 EF). Pain evaluation revealed no differences between the groups. In terms of complications, deep infection occurred in four (10.5%) patients belonging to the ORIF group and 2 (4.9%) to EF one. Signs of osteoarthritis (OA) were observed in 4 (10.5%) knees that had open reduction and in 11 (26.9%) that had a hybrid external fixator. CONCLUSIONS: Either ORIF or hybrid EF represents a valid treatment option in complex tibial plateau fractures. However, hybrid external fixation has shown relative better functional outcome results, relative lower rate of infection and decreased hospital stays. These aspects make of EF our best choice in case of high-energy complex tibial fractures.
INTRODUCTION: Management of complex tibial plateau fractures can be challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. Wide disagreement still remains about the best surgical technique to use in these fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of complex tibial plateau fractures treated by an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus hybrid external fixation (EF) in term of clinical and functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined a series of 79 patients affected by tibial plateau fractures admitted at our Department between January 2006 and November 2011. Forty-one patients were treated using a hybrid EF; in 38 cases, ORIF technique was used. Clinical evaluation was performed using the method of Rasmussen; functional assessment was made using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Residual pain was detected using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). RESULTS: The average time to union in the plate group was 17.2 weeks (9.1-45 weeks), while in the EF one 15.9 (7.5-32). The mean overall hospital stay was 14.2 days for the ORIF group and 7.8 for the EF group. At the last follow-up, the mean Rasmussen score was 24.9 (good) in the patients treated with ORIF and 25 (good) in those who received EF. The WOMAC index disclosed a relatively higher score in the EF group (80.5 ORIF-84.2 EF). Pain evaluation revealed no differences between the groups. In terms of complications, deep infection occurred in four (10.5%) patients belonging to the ORIF group and 2 (4.9%) to EF one. Signs of osteoarthritis (OA) were observed in 4 (10.5%) knees that had open reduction and in 11 (26.9%) that had a hybrid external fixator. CONCLUSIONS: Either ORIF or hybrid EF represents a valid treatment option in complex tibial plateau fractures. However, hybrid external fixation has shown relative better functional outcome results, relative lower rate of infection and decreased hospital stays. These aspects make of EF our best choice in case of high-energy complex tibial fractures.
Authors: Konstantinos Kateros; Spyridon P Galanakos; Georgios Kyriakopoulos; Stamatios A Papadakis; George A Macheras Journal: Indian J Orthop Date: 2018 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.251