| Literature DB >> 35586113 |
Jiayi Guo1, Yuan Liu1, Yiran Feng2, Lin Zhang2, Feng Li1, Yunfei Zhang1, Zhenya Wang1, Yongbing Wen1, Yanxing Guo1.
Abstract
Many patients with tibial plateau fractures present with various degrees of soft tissue contusion and severely damaged articular surface, ligament, and vascular nerves, and thus how to treat this kind of patient has become one of the great difficulties in clinical practice. Therefore, we aim to investigate the effects of surgical treatment guided by the three-column classification method on knee joint function and postoperative complications in patients with tibial plateau fractures. A total of 120 patients with three-column tibial plateau fractures admitted to our hospital from January 2018 to January 2019 were selected and divided into group A (n = 60) and group B (n = 60). Among them, the group A patients were treated with an anterior lateral approach in floating positions combined with reduction plate internal fixation with an L-shaped approach in the posteromedial joint, while the patients in group B received reduction plate internal fixation with a knee midline incision in supine positions. After that, the perioperative indexes, knee function scores, the MOS item short-from health survey (SF-36) scores, complication rate (CR), and overall treatment efficacy of the patients were compared between the two groups. The perioperative indexes in group A were significantly better than those in group B (P < 0.001); the knee function scores and SF-36 scores in group A were significantly higher than those in group B (P < 0.001); the CR in group A was significantly lower than that in group B (P < 0.001); the treatment efficacy in group A was significantly better than that in group B (P < 0.05). The three-column classification method, with highly instructive significance in tibial plateau fracture surgery, can improve treatment efficacy and reduce the incidence of complications, which is worthy of application and promotion in clinical practice.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35586113 PMCID: PMC9110135 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5935102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Comparison of general information between the two groups.
| Group | Cases | Male to female ratio | Average age (years old) | Schatzker | Time from getting fractures to the beginning of surgery (d) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | VI | |||||
| Group A | 60 | 33/27 | 39.5 ± 5.1 | 35 | 25 | 9.0 ± 1.2 |
| Group B | 60 | 32/28 | 39.1 ± 5.1 | 34 | 26 | 9.1 ± 1.3 |
| X2/ | 0.034 | 0.430 | 0.034 | 0.438 | ||
| P | 0.855 | 0.668 | 0.853 | 0.662 | ||
Comparison of perioperative indexes between the two groups ( ± s).
| Group | Operation time (min) | Intraoperative blood loss (ml) | Postoperative drainage volume (ml) | Postoperative ambulation time (d) | Postoperative weight-bearing time (d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 130.2 ± 6.5 | 201.2 ± 12.0 | 52.3 ± 10.1 | 4.1 ± 0.8 | 40.0 ± 10.2 |
| Group B | 145.2 ± 5.4 | 218.3 ± 12.5 | 62.3 ± 10.5 | 7.2 ± 0.9 | 49.3 ± 11.0 |
|
| 13.750 | 7.644 | 5.317 | 19.941 | 4.802 |
| P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Figure 1Comparison of knee joint function scores between the two groups ( ± s, points). Note: the abscissa represented groups A and B, while the ordinate represented Rasmussen score (points). indicated P < 0.001.
Figure 2Comparison of ROM between the two groups ( ± s, °). Note: the abscissa represented groups A and B, while the ordinate represented ROM (°). indicated P < 0.001.
Figure 3Comparison of SF-36 scores between the two groups ( ± s, points). Note: the abscissa represented 3 months (T0), 6 months (T1), and 9 months (T2) after surgery, while the ordinate represented SF-36 score (points). indicated P < 0.001.
Figure 4Comparison of CR between the two groups (n (%)). Note: the black area represented delayed healing, the dark gray area represented deep infection, the grid area represented superficial infection, the white area represented DVT, and the light gray area represented no complications.
Comparison of overall efficacy between the two groups (n (%)).
| Group | Excellent | Good | Poor | Excellent and good |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 28 (46.7) | 30 (50.0) | 2 (3.3) | 58 (96.7) |
| Group B | 18 (30.0) | 32 (53.3) | 10 (16.7) | 50 (83.3) |
| X2 | 3.525 | 0.134 | 5.926 | 5.926 |
| P | 0.060 | 0.715 | 0.015 | 0.015 |