Juan Boluda-Mengod1, Vicente Guimerà-García2, Beatriz Olías-López3, Pablo Renovell-Ferrer4, Ion Carrera5, Mario Herrera-Pérez6, José Luis Pais-Brito7. 1. Hospital Universitario Canarias (HUC), Carretera Ofra s/n., 38320, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; School of Medicine, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Campus de Ofra, s/n, 38071, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; Spanish Orthopaedic Trauma Association - The Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Spanish Society (SOTA-SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: juanboludacot@gmail.com. 2. Hospital Can Misses (HCM), Carrer de Corona s/n., 07800, Ibiza, Spain; Spanish Orthopaedic Trauma Association - The Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Spanish Society (SOTA-SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: vguime@hotmail.com. 3. Hospital Universitario Canarias (HUC), Carretera Ofra s/n., 38320, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; Spanish Orthopaedic Trauma Association - The Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Spanish Society (SOTA-SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: bea.olias.lopez@gmail.com. 4. Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia (CHGUV), Avenida Tres Cruces, 2, 46014, Valencia, Spain; Spanish Orthopaedic Trauma Association - The Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Spanish Society (SOTA-SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: renovell.pablo@gmail.com. 5. Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Sant Quintí, 89, 08041, Barcelona, Spain; Spanish Orthopaedic Trauma Association - The Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Spanish Society (SOTA-SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: icarrera@santpau.cat. 6. Hospital Universitario Canarias (HUC), Carretera Ofra s/n., 38320, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; School of Medicine, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Campus de Ofra, s/n, 38071, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; Spanish Orthopaedic Trauma Association - The Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Spanish Society (SOTA-SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: herrera42@gmail.com. 7. Hospital Universitario Canarias (HUC), Carretera Ofra s/n., 38320, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; School of Medicine, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Campus de Ofra, s/n, 38071, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain; Spanish Orthopaedic Trauma Association - The Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Spanish Society (SOTA-SECOT), Calle Fernández de los Ríos, 108, 28015, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: jlpais@telefonica.net.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The correct choice of surgical approaches in complex tibial plateau fractures is essential to achieve adequate reduction and fixation. Detailed fracture morphology and direction of columns displacement, that we have named the Main Deformity Direction (MDD), may aid in selecting the optimal surgical strategy. In this article we present a new algorithm based on MDD and column concepts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of a group of tibial plateau fractures treated according to this algorithm. The secondary aim was to evaluate the incidence of the different MDD in our multicolumnar subgroup. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Excluding isolated lateral one-column fractures, open fractures and patients not treated following this algorithm, 72 patients with tibial plateau fractures surgically treated with open reduction and internal fixation were collected retrospectively, from three trauma centers, from January 2015 to April 2019. Radiological assessment was performed to establish the columns involved and the MDD. Quality and maintenance of reduction and alignment, complications and functional outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Initial fracture analysis was performed in 72 patients (8 one-column, 35 two-column and 29 multicolumnar fractures). In the multicolumnar group, the posteromedial MDD was the most frequent pattern (17 of 29 patients). Four patients were excluded due to loss of follow-up, resulting 68 patients for final outcome analysis (7 one-column, 34 two-column and 27 multicolumnar). The average follow-up was 18 months (range: 6-52). Excellent/good outcomes were obtained in all one-column, 31 of 34 two-column and 25 of 27 multicolumnar fractures. Incomplete reduction was present in three patients. As complications, we had two loss of reduction, one conversion to knee arthroplasty, one nonunion and one deep infection. No patient presented neurological or vascular problems, knee instability or extension deficit. CONCLUSION: Satisfactory results have been obtained following the principles of our algorithm. In addition to the anatomical involvement of columns and segments, we believe that identifying the Main Deformity Direction (MDD) provides useful information for decision-making, especially in multicolumnar fractures. The most frequent MDD in our multicolumnar subgroup was the posteromedial MDD, but more than one-third presented a different MDD, requiring different surgical strategies.
INTRODUCTION: The correct choice of surgical approaches in complex tibial plateau fractures is essential to achieve adequate reduction and fixation. Detailed fracture morphology and direction of columns displacement, that we have named the Main Deformity Direction (MDD), may aid in selecting the optimal surgical strategy. In this article we present a new algorithm based on MDD and column concepts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of a group of tibial plateau fractures treated according to this algorithm. The secondary aim was to evaluate the incidence of the different MDD in our multicolumnar subgroup. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Excluding isolated lateral one-column fractures, open fractures and patients not treated following this algorithm, 72 patients with tibial plateau fractures surgically treated with open reduction and internal fixation were collected retrospectively, from three trauma centers, from January 2015 to April 2019. Radiological assessment was performed to establish the columns involved and the MDD. Quality and maintenance of reduction and alignment, complications and functional outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Initial fracture analysis was performed in 72 patients (8 one-column, 35 two-column and 29 multicolumnar fractures). In the multicolumnar group, the posteromedial MDD was the most frequent pattern (17 of 29 patients). Four patients were excluded due to loss of follow-up, resulting 68 patients for final outcome analysis (7 one-column, 34 two-column and 27 multicolumnar). The average follow-up was 18 months (range: 6-52). Excellent/good outcomes were obtained in all one-column, 31 of 34 two-column and 25 of 27 multicolumnar fractures. Incomplete reduction was present in three patients. As complications, we had two loss of reduction, one conversion to knee arthroplasty, one nonunion and one deep infection. No patient presented neurological or vascular problems, knee instability or extension deficit. CONCLUSION: Satisfactory results have been obtained following the principles of our algorithm. In addition to the anatomical involvement of columns and segments, we believe that identifying the Main Deformity Direction (MDD) provides useful information for decision-making, especially in multicolumnar fractures. The most frequent MDD in our multicolumnar subgroup was the posteromedial MDD, but more than one-third presented a different MDD, requiring different surgical strategies.