Correlation between CT images of lateral plateau and lateral meniscus injuries in patients with Schatzker II tibial plateau fractures:a retrospective study.
CT
Lateral meniscus injuries
Lateral plateau depression
Lateral plateau widening
Tibial plateau fractures
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jan 2022
03 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
20
05
2021
accepted:
13
12
2021
entrez:
4
1
2022
pubmed:
5
1
2022
medline:
6
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a great deal of controversy on whether routine MRI examination is needed for fresh fractures while the vast majority of patients with tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) receive preoperative X-ray and CT examinations. The purpose of the study was to analyze the exact correlation between CT images of lateral plateau and lateral meniscus injuries in Schatzker II TPFs. A total of 296 patients with Schatzker II TPFs from August 2012 to January 2021 in two trauma centers were enrolled for the analysis. According to the actual situation during open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and knee arthroscopic surgery, patients were divided into meniscus injury (including rupture, incarceration, etc.) and non-meniscus injury groups. The values of both lateral plateau depression (LPD) and lateral plateau widening (LPW) of lateral tibial plateau on CT images were measured, and their correlation with lateral meniscus injury was then analyzed. The relevant receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to evaluate the optimal cut-off point of the two indicators which could predict meniscus injury. The intra- and inter-observer reliabilities of LPD and LPW were acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.8). The average LPD was 13.2 ± 3.2 mm while the average value of the group without meniscus injury was 9.4 ± 3.2 mm. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The average LPW was 8.0 ± 1.4 mm and 6.8 ± 1.6 mm in meniscus injury and non-meniscus injury groups with a significant difference (P < 0.05). The optimal predictive cut-off value of LPD and LPW was 7.9 mm (sensitivity-95.0%, specificity-58.8%, area under the curve (AUC-0.818) and 7.5 mm (sensitivity-70.0%, specificity - 70.6%, AUC - 0.724), respectively. The meniscus injury group mainly showed injuries involving the mid-body and posterior horn of lateral meniscus (98.1%, 157/160). The mid-body and posterior horn of lateral meniscus injury is more likely to occur in patients with Schatzker II TPFs when LPD > 7.9 mm and/or LPW > 7.5 mm on CT. These findings will definitely provide guidance for orthopedic surgeons in treating such injuries. During the operation, more attention is required be paid to the treatment of the meniscus and the possible fracture reduction difficulties and poor alignment caused by meniscus rupture and incarceration should be fully considered in order to achieve better surgical results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a great deal of controversy on whether routine MRI examination is needed for fresh fractures while the vast majority of patients with tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) receive preoperative X-ray and CT examinations. The purpose of the study was to analyze the exact correlation between CT images of lateral plateau and lateral meniscus injuries in Schatzker II TPFs.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 296 patients with Schatzker II TPFs from August 2012 to January 2021 in two trauma centers were enrolled for the analysis. According to the actual situation during open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and knee arthroscopic surgery, patients were divided into meniscus injury (including rupture, incarceration, etc.) and non-meniscus injury groups. The values of both lateral plateau depression (LPD) and lateral plateau widening (LPW) of lateral tibial plateau on CT images were measured, and their correlation with lateral meniscus injury was then analyzed. The relevant receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to evaluate the optimal cut-off point of the two indicators which could predict meniscus injury.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The intra- and inter-observer reliabilities of LPD and LPW were acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.8). The average LPD was 13.2 ± 3.2 mm while the average value of the group without meniscus injury was 9.4 ± 3.2 mm. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The average LPW was 8.0 ± 1.4 mm and 6.8 ± 1.6 mm in meniscus injury and non-meniscus injury groups with a significant difference (P < 0.05). The optimal predictive cut-off value of LPD and LPW was 7.9 mm (sensitivity-95.0%, specificity-58.8%, area under the curve (AUC-0.818) and 7.5 mm (sensitivity-70.0%, specificity - 70.6%, AUC - 0.724), respectively. The meniscus injury group mainly showed injuries involving the mid-body and posterior horn of lateral meniscus (98.1%, 157/160).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The mid-body and posterior horn of lateral meniscus injury is more likely to occur in patients with Schatzker II TPFs when LPD > 7.9 mm and/or LPW > 7.5 mm on CT. These findings will definitely provide guidance for orthopedic surgeons in treating such injuries. During the operation, more attention is required be paid to the treatment of the meniscus and the possible fracture reduction difficulties and poor alignment caused by meniscus rupture and incarceration should be fully considered in order to achieve better surgical results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34980066
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04967-2
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04967-2
pmc: PMC8725471
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Orthop Trauma. 2005 Feb;19(2):79-84
pubmed: 15677922
Adv Orthop. 2020 May 8;2020:1895852
pubmed: 32455027
Injury. 2018 Mar;49(3):473-490
pubmed: 29395219
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Jul;29(7):322-4
pubmed: 25635356
J Knee Surg. 2016 Aug;29(6):451-7
pubmed: 27183240
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2017 Jun 1;29(2):137-143
pubmed: 28545179
Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Oct;51(4):471-479
pubmed: 32950216
Orthopedics. 2010 Feb;33(2):80-4
pubmed: 20192139
Radiographics. 2009 Mar-Apr;29(2):585-97
pubmed: 19325067
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015 Mar-Apr;39(2):257-62
pubmed: 25406058
Injury. 2021 Jun;52(6):1539-1543
pubmed: 33046254
Injury. 2018 Dec;49(12):2252-2263
pubmed: 30526924
Injury. 2017 Mar;48(3):745-750
pubmed: 28190582
Knee. 2020 Mar;27(2):420-427
pubmed: 32035704
J Trauma. 2006 Feb;60(2):319-23; discussion 324
pubmed: 16508489
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Sep;21(9):2141-6
pubmed: 22956166
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jul 29;2018:5353820
pubmed: 30151383
Arthroscopy. 2006 Jun;22(6):669-75
pubmed: 16762707
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Feb 6;16(1):117
pubmed: 33549145
J Knee Surg. 2010 Dec;23(4):187-92
pubmed: 21446623
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Nov;31(11):e369-e374
pubmed: 28650946
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Aug 23;14(1):267
pubmed: 31443667
Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 6;8(1):13317
pubmed: 30190502