Seung Min Ryu1, Chang Hyun Choi1, Han Seok Yang1, Wook Tae Park1, Oog Jin Shon1, Sam-Guk Park2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yeungnam University Medical Center, 170 Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42415, South Korea. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yeungnam University Medical Center, 170 Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42415, South Korea. radiorth@ynu.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment of a tibial plateau fracture (TPF) remains controversial and is generally challenging. Many authors report good results after conventional open reduction and internal fixation in TPF, but complications still occur. This study analyzed causes and outcomes of revision surgery for TPF. The usefulness of a flow chart for revision surgery in TPF was also evaluated. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent more than two operations for a TPF between 2008 and 2015. Finally, 24 cases were selected and retrospectively investigated. The medial tibial plateau angle and proximal posterior tibial angle were radiologically evaluated. The American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), range of motion (ROM), and bone union time were investigated after surgery. RESULTS: Revision surgery for infection was performed in eight cases, for nonunion in six cases, for posttraumatic arthritis (with total knee arthroplasty) in six cases, and for other reasons in four cases. The mean clinical AKSS at final follow-up was 87.3 ± 5.3 (range, 75-95), the functional AKSS was 81.9 ± 5.5 (range, 70-90), the WOMAC score was 9.9 ± 3.1 (range, 5-16), the flexion ROM was 119.8 ± 16.5° (range, 100-150°), and the extension ROM was 2.5 ± 3.3° (range, 0-10°). CONCLUSIONS: Although complications cannot be avoided in some cases, good clinical outcomes are possible when patients are divided according to the presence or absence of infection, with selection of appropriate revision surgery as shown in the flow chart. If an infection is present, treatment should be based on the presence or absence of bone union. If there is no infection, treatment should be based on the presence or absence of nonunion, post-traumatic arthritis, malunion, or immediate post-operative malreduction.
PURPOSE: Treatment of a tibial plateau fracture (TPF) remains controversial and is generally challenging. Many authors report good results after conventional open reduction and internal fixation in TPF, but complications still occur. This study analyzed causes and outcomes of revision surgery for TPF. The usefulness of a flow chart for revision surgery in TPF was also evaluated. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent more than two operations for a TPF between 2008 and 2015. Finally, 24 cases were selected and retrospectively investigated. The medial tibial plateau angle and proximal posterior tibial angle were radiologically evaluated. The American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), range of motion (ROM), and bone union time were investigated after surgery. RESULTS: Revision surgery for infection was performed in eight cases, for nonunion in six cases, for posttraumatic arthritis (with total knee arthroplasty) in six cases, and for other reasons in four cases. The mean clinical AKSS at final follow-up was 87.3 ± 5.3 (range, 75-95), the functional AKSS was 81.9 ± 5.5 (range, 70-90), the WOMAC score was 9.9 ± 3.1 (range, 5-16), the flexion ROM was 119.8 ± 16.5° (range, 100-150°), and the extension ROM was 2.5 ± 3.3° (range, 0-10°). CONCLUSIONS: Although complications cannot be avoided in some cases, good clinical outcomes are possible when patients are divided according to the presence or absence of infection, with selection of appropriate revision surgery as shown in the flow chart. If an infection is present, treatment should be based on the presence or absence of bone union. If there is no infection, treatment should be based on the presence or absence of nonunion, post-traumatic arthritis, malunion, or immediate post-operative malreduction.
Authors: Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos; Antonios A Partsinevelos; George S Themistocleous; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Demetrios S Korres; Panayotis N Soucacos Journal: Injury Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: David P Barei; Sean E Nork; William J Mills; M Bradford Henley; Stephen K Benirschke Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512