Tibial plateau fracture management: ARIF versus ORIF - clinical and radiological comparison.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Arthroscopy
/ adverse effects
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Fracture Fixation, Internal
/ methods
Humans
Infections
/ etiology
Intra-Articular Fractures
/ diagnostic imaging
Knee Joint
/ diagnostic imaging
Lysholm Knee Score
Male
Middle Aged
Open Fracture Reduction
/ adverse effects
Radiography
Range of Motion, Articular
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Tibial Fractures
/ diagnostic imaging
Young Adult
Arthroscopy
Knee
Open surgery
Results
Tibial plateau fracture
Journal
Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR
ISSN: 1877-0568
Titre abrégé: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101494830
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
05
04
2018
revised:
04
10
2018
accepted:
13
10
2018
pubmed:
26
12
2018
medline:
11
1
2020
entrez:
26
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Arthroscopy has enabled minimally invasive procedures to be developed to treat tibial plateau fracture. The aim of the present study was to assess and compare clinical and radiological results between arthroscopically assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) procedures. The study hypothesis was that, in selected tibial plateau fractures, ARIF provides (1) clinical results comparable to those of ORIF, and (2) satisfactory reduction and stable fixation. A retrospective multicenter study included adult patients with tibial plateau fracture (Schatzker I to III), over the period January 2010 to December 2014, enabling a minimum 2 years' follow-up. Clinical and radiological data (RoM, IKDC, HSS, Lysholm) were collected at 3, 6 and 12 months and at last follow-up. A total of 317 patients (317 fractures), aged 48±14 years (range, 18-82 years) were followed up for 38±23 months (range, 24-90 months), with 77 fractures (24%) in the ARIF group and 240 (76%) in the ORIF group. Clinically, there were no significant inter-group differences for active flexion, passive or active extension or Lysholm and IKDC scores, with significant differences for HSS (ARIF: 74±29; ORIF: 70±31; p<0.01) and passive flexion (ARIF: 130±19° (range, 80-160°); ORIF: 130±15.965° (range, 60-140°); p<0.05). Radiologically, there were no significant inter-group differences for reduction quality, lower-limb mechanical axis or signs of osteoarthritis. There were no secondary displacements. There were 7 complications (7/77, 9%) in the ARIF group and 18 (18/240, 8%) in the ORIF group, and 6 surgical revisions for early infection (2 ARIF, 4 ORIF), with no significant inter-group differences. The study hypothesis was confirmed: in Schatzker I-III fractures, ARIF provided clinical results comparable to those of ORIF, with satisfactory reduction and stable fixation. ARIF has its place in the treatment of tibial plateau subsidence and/or separation fracture. III, retrospective comparative study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30584002
pii: S1877-0568(18)30372-4
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.10.015
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
101-106Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.