| Literature DB >> 31156765 |
Caner Citak1, Cemil Kayali2, Firat Ozan3, Taskin Altay2, Huseyin Gokhan Karahan2, Kamil Yamak2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, our aim was to compare the results of the dual locking plate fixation technique and lateral locking plate fixation technique for tibial bicondylar plateau fractures without posteromedial fragment.Entities:
Keywords: Bicondylar tibial plateau; Dual plate; Fracture; Locking plate fixation; Single plate
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31156765 PMCID: PMC6526137 DOI: 10.4055/cios.2019.11.2.151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Orthop Surg ISSN: 2005-291X
Studies Available in the Literature on the Comparison of Bicondylar Plateau Fractures with Unilateral Locked Plating and Dual Plating (2000–2017)
| Study | No. of patients | Mean age (yr) | Followup (mo) | Type of fracture (AO classification) | Plate type | Union rate (%) | Complication (infection, deep venous thrombosis, failure of fixation, nonunion; %) | Knee score | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SP | DP | SP | DP | SP | DP | SP | DP | SP | DP | SP | DP | SP | DP | ||
| Jiang et al. (2008) | 41 | 43 | 41 | 43 | 24 | C1, 8; C2, 19; C3, 16 | C1, 5; C2, 16; C3, 22 | LISS | M, buttress plate; L, LC-DCP | 100 | 97.7 | 63.4 | 48.8 | HSS, 83 | HSS, 83 |
| Lee et al. (2014) | 15 | CDP, 19; HDP, 11 | 49 | CDP, 53; HDP, 51 | 18 | S (V/VI), 8/7 | CDP: S (V/VI), 13/6; HDP: S (V/VI), 4/7 | LCP | CDP: M and L, buttress plate; HDP: L, LCP; M, buttress plate | 86 | CDP, 78; HDP, 90 | 40 | CDP, 47; HDP, 27 | WOMAC, 36 | WOMAC, 34; WOMAC, 32 |
| Yao et al. (2015) | 41 | 44 | 43 | 45 | 12–36 | C1, 26; C2, 10; C3, 5 | C1, 24; C2, 13; C3, 7 | LCP | M and L, buttress plate | 100 | 100 | 4.8 | 27.2 | HSS, 81 | HSS, 79 |
| Neogi et al. (2015) | 29 | 32 | 41 | 37 | 12–24 | C1, 10; C2, 11; C3, 8 | C1, 11; C2, 13; C3, 8 | LCP | M, RP/DCP/DRP; L, LCP | 100 | 100 | 65.5 | 50 | HSS, 79 | HSS, 80 |
SP: single lateral locking plate, DP: dual plate, LISS: Less Invasive Stabilization System, M: medial side, L: lateral side, LC-DCP: limited-contact dynamic compression plate, HSS: Hospital for Special Surgery score, CDP: classic dual plate, HDP: hybrid dual plate, S: Schatzker classification, LCP: locking compression plate, WOMAC: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, RP: reconstruction plate, DRP: distal end radius plate.
Fig. 1(A) Preoperative radiograph showing left tibial plateau fracture in a 36-year-old male patient. (B, C) Radiographs taken 21 months after dual locking plate fixation.
Fig. 2(A) Preoperative radiograph showing right tibial plateau fracture in a 36-year-old female patient. (B, C) Radiographs taken 14 months after lateral locking plate fixation.
Demographic Characteristics
| Variable | Group 1 (n = 10) | Group 2 (n = 10) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 51.3 (34–73) | 51.2 (25–83) | 0.880 |
| Sex | 1.000 | ||
| Female | 3 | 2 | |
| Male | 7 | 8 | |
| AO classification | 0.303 | ||
| C1 | 4 | 1 | |
| C2 | 6 | 9 | |
| Side of involvement | 1.000 | ||
| Right | 5 | 5 | |
| Left | 5 | 5 | |
| Follow-up (mo) | 24 (13–56) | 27.8 (15–54) | 0.761 |
| Time from injury to surgery (day) | 7.8 (3–15) | 8.5 (4–15) | 0.542 |
Values are presented as mean (range) or number.
Group 1: dual locking plate group, Group 2: lateral locking plate group.
Functional Outcomes of Two Techniques
| Variable | Group 1 (n = 10) | Group 2 (n = 10) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| KSS | 79.1 (49–100) | 72.9 (30–94) | 0.496 |
| RFS | 24.3 (16–30) | 22.9 (17–28) | 0.238 |
| RRS | 15.8 (10–18) | 15.2 (6–18) | 0.903 |
| VAS | 4.5 (0–9) | 5.5 (2–9) | 0.517 |
| ROM (°) | 120 (100–130) | 119 (110–130) | 0.430 |
Values are presented as mean (range).
Group 1: dual locking plate group, Group 2: lateral locking plate group, KSS: Knee Society Knee Scoring System, RFS: Rasmussen functional score, RRS: Rasmussen radiological score, VAS: visual analog scale, ROM: range of motion.
Comparison of the Radiological Outcomes between Group 1 and Group 2 and between the Injured Side and the Uninjured Side in Each Group
| Variable | Group 1 (n = 10) | Group 2 (n = 10) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFAA (°) | 0.799 | 0.046 | 0.399 | ||
| Fracture side, early postoperative | 3.9 (2–6) | 5.4 (2–13) | |||
| Fracture side, last visit | 3.9 (2–6) | 5.6 (2–15) | |||
| Normal side | 4.0 (2–6) | 3.3 (1–7) | |||
| MPTA (°) | 0.221 | 0.779 | 0.545 | ||
| Fracture side, early postoperative | 86.1 (82–89) | 86 (81–90) | |||
| Fracture side, last visit | 86.8 (84–89) | 86.3 (82–91) | |||
| Normal side | 87.2 (85–88) | 86.1 (83–88) | |||
| PPTA (°) | 0.035 | 1.000 | 0.903 | ||
| Fracture side, early postoperative | 5.3 (2–7) | 5.4 (4–9) | |||
| Fracture side, last visit | 5.4 (3–7) | 5.5 (4–9) | |||
| Normal side | 6.3 (5–8) | 5.4 (4–6) |
Values are presented as mean (range).
Group 1: dual locking plate group, Group 2: lateral locking plate group, TFAA: tibiofemoral anatomic angle, MPTA: medial proximal tibial angle, PPTA: proximal posterior tibial angle.
*Statistical comparison of the last visit values between the fracture side and the normal side. †Statistical comparison of the last visit values in the fracture side between group 1 and group 2.