| Literature DB >> 28567342 |
Saumitra Goyal1, Monappa A Naik1, Sujit Kumar Tripathy1, Sharath K Rao1.
Abstract
AIM: To measure single baseline deep posterior compartment pressure in tibial fracture complicated by acute compartment syndrome (ACS) and to correlate it with functional outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Compartment syndrome; Deep posterior compartment; Functional outcome; Intracompartmental pressure; Leg; Tibial fracture
Year: 2017 PMID: 28567342 PMCID: PMC5434345 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i5.385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Orthop ISSN: 2218-5836
Figure 1Clinical photograph and radiograph of a patient with right proximal tibial fracture and compartment syndrome.
Figure 2Equipment used for compartment pressure measurement; 18G iv cannula, saline filled line with electronic transducer and Philips VM8 monitor.
Figure 3Deep posterior compartment pressure of 67 mmHg in the same patient (clinical photograph in Figure 1).
Figure 4Correlation of time since injury to pressure values.
Figure 5Residual right side toe deformity and ankle stiffness in a patient (shown in Figure 1) at follow up, X-ray of fracture union of this patient.
Complications in tibial fracture patients with acute compartment syndrome (n = 29)
| Amputation ( | 3 (9.4) |
| Infection (fasciotomy wound) | 5 (17.2) |
| Toe deformities ( | 8 (27.6) |
| Ankle stiffness (affecting function) | 19 (76.0) |
| Residual paralysis (EHL/FHL/ankle DF/ankle PF) | 18 (62.1) |
| Paraesthesia or nerve dysfunction | 3 (10.3) |
| Limb contracture | 5 (17.2) |
| Muscle herniation (fasciotomy site) | 2 (6.9) |
| Pain (apart from fracture site) | 15 (51.7) |
| Others (DVT, limb edema) | 9 (31.0) |
DVT: Deep vain thrombosis.
Disability in tibial fracture patients with acute compartment syndrome (n = 29)
| Sitting 90° | 27 (93.1) | 2 (6.9) |
| Cross legged sitting | 22 (75.9) | 7 (24.1) |
| Squatting | 17 (58.6) | 12 (41.4) |
| Walking | 24 (84.8) | 5 (17.2) |
| Running | 13 (48.8) | 16 (55.2) |
| Stair climbing | 19 (65.5) | 10 (34.5) |
Mean pressure values (mmHg) in patients with complications (n = 29)
| Yes | 55.4 (15) | 51.9 (18) | 53.7 (18) | 52.2 (16) | 52.2 (12) |
| No | 47.5 (14) | 51.1 (11) | 48.2 (11) | 50.8 (13) | 51.1 (17) |
| 0.019 | 0.827 | 0.125 | 0.753 | 0.702 |
Figure 6Negative correlation plot of lower extremity functional scale with rising pressure (Pearson’s R = -0.814, P < 0.001).
Figure 7Correlation of (A) fasciotomy delay (Pearson’s R= -0.182, P = 0.928) and (B) time since injury (Pearson’s R = -0.369, P = 1.984) with lower extremity functional scale. LEFS: Lower extremity functional score.