| Literature DB >> 32600299 |
Liang Zhang1, Li Zhang2, Jiang Zheng1, Bo Ren1, Xin Kang1, Xian Zhang1, Xiaoqian Dang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fixing a tibial eminence fracture with a tri-pulley is a new technique. The purpose of this study was to present the early clinical outcome of arthroscopic tri-pulley suture fixation for tibial eminence fractures in children.Entities:
Keywords: Arthroscopy; Bone development; Child; Fracture fixation; Tibial fractures
Year: 2020 PMID: 32600299 PMCID: PMC7325093 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03421-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Tri-pulley technology. a Three anchors were placed into the edge of the fracture bed. Post edge (anchor A), anterolateral edge (anchor B) and anteromedial edge (anchor C). b & c A hook penetrated the distal part of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) to thread through anchor A from different sides of the ACL. d Image after fracture reduction and fixation by tri-pulley technology. e Schematic drawing of the tri-pulley technology. f X-ray in the operation room ensured the anchor was on the proximal epiphyseal
Fig. 2Pass Technology a Anchor A with a white thread and a needle with colored thread form another anchor. b The needle was passed through the white thread. c The needle was moved off and the white thread was pulled to thread the colored thread through anchor A. d Anchor A was combined with another anchor by the colored thread
Fig. 3Post-operation images. a: Conventional radiography anterior posterior (AP) and b: lateral view and c: computed tomography (CT) scan immediately after surgery. d: Conventional radiography AP and e: lateral view and f: CT scan 6-months post-operation. Showing good epiphyseal union of the fracture
Baseline and clinical data from the 21 patients
| Mean Age, years | Sex male/female | Fracture Type, numbers | Time to surgery after injury, days | Length of operation, min | Length of stay, days | Follow-up, months |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.7 ± 2.1 | 14 /7 | Type II 15 | 7.7 ± 1.7 | 59.4 ± 8.3 | 6.3 ± 1.2 | 28.4 ± 5.6 |
| Type III 6 |
Comparison of fracture stability prior to treatment with 1-year follow-up
| Follow up | Pre-op | Post-op (12 months) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | + | ++ | +++ | – | + | ++ | +++ | ||
| Lachman (numbers of patient) | 0 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | .001 |
| Anterior drawer (numbers of patient) | 0 | 6 | 12 | 3 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | .001 |
| Pivot shift (numbers of patient) | 9 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .002 |
The tests were graded normal (−); mild (+); moderate (++); and severe (+++)
Op operation