| Literature DB >> 35097075 |
Hai-Feng Li1, Tao Yu2, Xing-Fei Zhu2, Hua Wang3, Ying-Qi Zhang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex tibial plateau fractures can seriously affect quality of life and physical and mental health of patients. The anatomical relationship between the proximal tibial bone and soft tissue is complex, resulting in different types of tibial plateau fractures. Violent trauma can lead to displaced fracture, serious soft tissue injury, and potentially, dislocation of the knee joint. Therefore, tibial plateau fractures are extremely unstable. AIM: To assess the use of locking compression plate (LCP) + T-type steel plate for postoperative weight bearing and functional recovery of complex tibial plateau fractures.Entities:
Keywords: Complexity; Complications; Functional recovery; Locking compression plate; T-type steel plate; Tibial plateau fracture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35097075 PMCID: PMC8771395 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.502
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.337
Figure 1A 54-year-old male patient suffered a Schatzker type VI fracture on the right side due to a car accident. A-D: The patient received locking compression plate combined with T-plate treatment on day 6 after admission to the hospital. Re-examination of the X-ray results showed that the reduction was good, and the internal fixation was stable; E, F: The results of the re-examination at 18 mo after the operation. The patient's fracture was completely healed.
Comparison of the operation status and length of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Study group | 49 | 118.3 ± 14.0 | 339.4 ± 38.0 | 17.5 ± 2.2 | 7.10 ± 1.87 | 139.4 ± 34.0 | 7.4 ± 1.5 |
| Control group | 48 | 130.1 ± 16.3 | 344.1 ± 42.6 | 17.8 ± 2.6 | 9.23 ± 2.04 | 143.8 ± 39.6 | 7.8 ± 1.7 |
|
| -3.827 | -0.574 | -0.614 | -5.362 | -0.588 | -1.229 | |
|
| 0.000 | 0.568 | 0.541 | 0.000 | 0.558 | 0.222 |
Comparison of postoperative fracture healing between the two groups (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
|
| Study group | 49 | 13.5 ± 1.7 | 14.6 ± 1.2 |
| Control group | 48 | 14.0 ± 2.0 | 16.2 ± 1.8 |
|
| -1.328 | -5.161 | |
|
| 0.187 | 0.000 |
Comparison of the angles of tibial plateau varus angle and tibial plateau retroversion angle between the two groups of patients at different times after surgery (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Study group | 49 | 86.34 ± 3.81 | 86.04 ± 2.51 | 9.54 ± 2.20 | 9.83 ± 1.72 |
| Control group | 48 | 86.51 ± 3.44 | 85.78 ± 2.92 | 9.31 ± 2.14 | 9.91 ± 1.84 |
|
| -0.231 | 0.471 | 0.522 | -0.221 | |
|
| 0.818 | 0.639 | 0.603 | 0.825 | |
TPA: Tibial plateau varus angle; PA: Tibial plateau retroversion angle.
Comparison of knee joint function between the two groups (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 49 | 18.84 ± 3.50 | 25.81 ± 2.50 | 10.41 ± 2.10 | 15.50 ± 1.32 |
|
| 48 | 16.57 ± 3.32 | 25.21 ± 2.64 | 10.13 ± 2.32 | 15.16 ± 1.27 |
|
| 3.276 | 1.150 | 0.623 | 1.292 | |
|
| 0.001 | 0.253 | 0.534 | 0.199 | |
Comparison of surgical complication rates between the two groups, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Study group | 49 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 (3.77) |
| Control group | 48 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 8 (15.09) |
|
| 4.153 | ||||
|
| 0.042 |