| Literature DB >> 34671507 |
Wolf C Prall1,2, Thomas Kusmenkov2, Maximilian Rieger1, Florian Haasters1,2, Hermann O Mayr1,3, Wolfgang Böcker2, Julian Fürmetz2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Split-depression fractures to the lateral tibial plateau (AO41B3) often feature severe joint surface destructions. Precontoured locking compression plates (LCPs) are designed for optimum support of the reduced joint surface and have especially been emphasized in reduced bone quality. A lack of evidence still inhibits their broad utilization in elderly patients. Thus, aim of the present study was to investigate the implant-specific radiological outcomes of AO41B3-fractures in young versus elderly patients.Entities:
Keywords: Schatzker II; adult reconstructive surgery; fragility fractures; geriatric trauma; osteoporosis; osteosynthesis; radiological outcome; split-depression; tibial plateau fracture; trauma surgery
Year: 2021 PMID: 34671507 PMCID: PMC8521727 DOI: 10.1177/21514593211043967
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil ISSN: 2151-4585
Modified Rasmussen Criteria for Radiological Assessment.[18,19]
| Points | |
|---|---|
| Articular depression | |
| None | 3 |
| <5 mm | 2 |
| 6–10 mm | 1 |
| >10 mm | 0 |
| Condyle widening | |
| None | 3 |
| <5 mm | 2 |
| 6–10 mm | 1 |
| >10 mm | 0 |
| Varus/valgus angulation | |
| None | 3 |
| <10° | 2 |
| 10–20° | 1 |
| >20° | 0 |
| Osteoarthrosis | |
| None/no progression | 1 |
| Progression by 1 grade | 0 |
| Progression by >1 grade | −1 |
| Excellent | 9–10 |
| Good | 7–8 |
| Fair | 5–6 |
| Poor | <5 |
Figure 1.The Rasmussen Radiological Score and the MPTA were evaluated immediately postoperatively (a) as well as approximately six weeks (b) and one year (c) after open reduction and internal fixation.
Grading of Osteoarthrosis According to Resnick and Niwoyama.
| Grade | |
|---|---|
| 0 | None |
| 1 | Minimal joint space narrowing |
| 2 | Moderate narrowing, osteophytes |
| 3 | Marked joint space narrowing |
Figure 2.The overall age distribution was evaluated in 104 patients with AO41B3-fractures and ORIF treated at the group’s hospital 2010–2016 (a). The gender-specific age distribution shows that younger patients are predominately male (b) and elderly patients predominately female (c).
Patients’ Demographics, Fracture Characteristics, and Mean Timepoints of Radiological Follow-up for Overall Comparison of Young and Elderly Prior to Implant-Specific Subgrouping.
| Young ( | Elderly ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 38.2 (±7.8) | 61.3 (±9.4) | n/a |
| Gender distribution (m: f) | 18:8 | 15:18 | .07 |
| Depressed joint area (cm2) | 4.1 (±.8) | 4.7 (±2.0) | .58 |
| Max. depression depth (mm) | 10.4 (±6.3) | 11.0 (±7.0) | .92 |
| Void volume (mm3) | 29.6 (±20.0) | 36.8 (±29.4) | .69 |
| Void filing (yes: no) | 10:16 | 24:9 |
|
| X-ray (days) | 2.4 (±2.3) | 2.2 (±1.7) | .79 |
| X-ray (weeks) | 6.9 (±2.3) | 7.7 (±4.0) | .42 |
| X-ray (weeks) | 65.4 (±38.0) | 66.0 (±33.5) | .95 |
Figure 3.The radiological follow-up of all patients included revealed no significant differences in the Rasmussen Radiological Score (a) or the MPTA (b) between young and elderly prior to implant-specific subgrouping (overall).
Patients’ Demographics and Fracture Characteristics After Implant-Specific Subgrouping of Young and Elderly Patients.
| Young |
| Elderly | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precont. LCP ( | Conventional ( | Precont. LCP ( | Conventional ( |
| ||
| Age (years) | 38.7 (±7.6) | 37.8 (±8.3) | .78 | 60.2 (±9.8) | 62.9 (±8.7) | .42 |
| Gender distribution (m: f) | 10:3 | 8:5 | .67 | 9:11 | 6:7 | .77 |
| Depressed joint area (cm2) | 4.0 (±.8) | 4.3 (±.8) | .39 | 4.6 (±1.8) | 4.9 (±2.2) | .68 |
| Max. depression depth (mm) | 12.2 (±7.5) | 8.7 (±4.3) | .15 | 10.6 (±6.7) | 11.6 (±7.8) | .7 |
| Void volume (mm3) | 33.9 (±22.3) | 25.3 (±16.4) | .28 | 35.9 (±30.5) | 38.2 (±28.8) | .83 |
| Void filing (yes: no) | 6:7 | 4:9 | .42 | 15:5 | 9:4 | .72 |
Figure 4.The radiological outcomes by age groups after implant-specific subgrouping revealed significantly impaired results for conventional implants in young patients (a, c). The effect was even more pronounced in elderly with highly significant deterioration for conventional implants (b, d).