| Literature DB >> 35784973 |
Prabhu Ethiraj1, Ajay S Shringeri1, Arun Prasad P1, Arun H Shanthappa1, Vishnudharan Nagarajan1.
Abstract
Introduction Floating knee injury (FKI) occurs as a result of a high-velocity impact. We assessed the radiological and functional outcomes of FKIs treated by various fixation methods, by damage control orthopedics (DCO) or early total care (ETC). Materials and methods We investigated 46 patients with FKI who were operated on between January 2013 and January 2018 at the RL Jalappa Hospital and Research Center, Kolar, India. Functional assessments were evaluated using Karlström and Olerud's criteria (KOC). Based on their treatments, the patients were divided into the damage control orthopedics group (n = 21) and the ETC group (n = 25). Statistical analyses were used to obtain and compare summary data. Results The data of 46 patients were collected. Fractures were classified using the modified Fraser's classification. Five patients were not included in the final analysis because of death due to complications in the immediate postoperative period. In patients managed by DCO, after radiological union, the functional outcome was excellent in three cases, good in eight, fair in seven, and poor in two. The average time required for radiological union of the femur was 10.75 ± 1.482 months (P = 0.001); for tibia union, it was 10.25 ± 1.682 months (P = 0.011). The average range of knee flexion was 85°± 16.059° (P = 0.001), which was statistically significant. In patients managed by ETC, there were six cases with an excellent functional outcome, 13 with a good outcome, and two with a fair outcome. The average time required for radiological union of the femur was 9.29 ± 1.765 months (P = 0.006); for the tibia, it was 9.05 ± 1.161 months (P = 0.012). The average range of knee flexion was 100° ± 10.954° (P = 0.001), which was statistically significant. Fat embolism was noted in eight cases; four of these patients died due to multiorgan dysfunction. This was the major life-threatening complication in the early definitive fixation group. In the DCO group, only three cases had fat embolism, with one death due to multiorgan dysfunction. Early postoperative infection was a concern in the ETC group, evident in six cases. Conclusion The classification system for FKI needs further research, which must include multiple parameters. Fracture classification and patient selection are crucial considerations in deciding the best treatment for a particular fracture.Entities:
Keywords: damage control surgery; early total care; floating knee; fraser classification; high-energy trauma
Year: 2022 PMID: 35784973 PMCID: PMC9249040 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25615
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Karlström and Olerud’s criteria for assessing the outcomes of floating knee injury
| Excellent | Good | Fair/acceptable | Poor | |
| Subjective symptoms of the leg | Nil | Intermittent minimal symptoms | More severe symptoms impairing function | Considerable functional impairment, pain at rest |
| Subjective symptoms of the knee or ankle | Nil | Intermittent minimal symptoms | More severe symptoms impairing function | Considerable functional impairment, pain at rest |
| Ability to walk | Unimpaired | Intermittent minimal impairment | Restricted | Uses cane or crutch |
| Works and sports | Same as before the injury | Given up some sports, work same as before | Change to less strenuous work | Permanent disability |
| Malangulation, malrotation, or both | Nil | <10° | 10°-20° | >20° |
| Leg-length discrepancy | Nil | <1 cm | 1-3 cm | >3 cm |
| Restriction of joint movements (hip, knee, and ankle) | Nil | <10°at the ankle, <20° at the hip, knee, or both | 10°-20°at the ankle, 20°-40° at the hip, knee, or both | >20° at the ankle, >40° at the hip, knee, or both |
Figure 1Time for union of femur fracture
ETC, early total care; DCO, damage control orthopedics; TFU, time for union
Figure 2Time for union of tibia fracture
ETC, early total care; DCO, damage control orthopedics; TFU, time for union
Figure 3Knee flexion
ETC, early total care; DCO, damage control orthopedics
Figure 4Karlström and Olerud’s outcomes for DCO and ETC
ETC, early total care; DCO, damage control orthopedics
The modified Fraser’s classification of floating knee injury
| Class | Articular status | Description | Incidence | |
| Type 1 | Extra-articular | Bidiaphysis fractures - fractures of both the femur and tibia at the diaphysis | 50% | |
| Type 2 | Intra-articular | Type 2A | Simple articular | 17.4% |
| Type 2B | Complex articular | 19.6% | ||
| Type 3 | Associated patellar fracture | Type 3A | Simple patellar fracture | 6.5% |
| Type 3B | Multifragmentary patellar fracture | 6.5% | ||
Results of various standard studies on floating knee injury
| Name of study | Sample size | Excellent | Good | Acceptable/fair | Poor |
|
Fraser et al. (1978) [ | 63 | 3 | 15 | 30 | 15 |
|
Rethnam et al. (2007) [ | 29 | 15 | 9 | 2 | 3 |
|
Aher et al. (2016) [ | 30 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 8 |
|
Schiedts et al. (1996) [ | 18 | 4 | 7 | - | 7 |
|
Mohamadean et al. (2017) [ | 21 | 11 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
|
Hee et al. (2009) [ | 89 | 6 | 53 | 25 | 4 |
| Our study | 41 | 9 | 21 | 9 | 2 |