MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: Comparison of outcomes of ORIF versus bidirectional tractor and arthroscopically assisted CRIF in the treatment of lateral tibial plateau fractures: a retrospective cohort study.
Author: Deng X, Hu H, Zhang Y, Liu W, Song Q, Cheng X, Zhu J, Yang S, Ye Z, Guan H, Zhang B, Zheng Z, Zhang Y.
Journal: J Orthop Surg Res; 2021 May 03; 16(1):289. PubMed ID: 33941204.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Lateral tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) are often treated with conventional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) through standard anterolateral sub-meniscal arthrotomy. There has been increasing support for "bidirectional rapid redactor" device-assisted closed reduction and internal fixation (CRIF) for treating TPFs. The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between CRIF and ORIF procedures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 55 lateral TPF patients (Schatzker types I-III) who accepted surgical treatment at our trauma level 1 center between January 2016 and January 2018. They were divided into the CRIF group (32 patients) and the ORIF group (23 patients) based upon the different surgical protocols. The patients' clinical outcome analysis was evaluated by using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Rasmussen's clinical score. For radiological assessment, changes in tibial plateau width (TPW), articular depression depth (ADD), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and posterior tibial slope angle (PTSA) were evaluated using radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scan. RESULTS: The CRIF group had a mean follow-up of 28.9 months, and the ORIF group had a mean follow-up of 30.7 months (p>0.05). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of age, gender, injury mechanism, follow-up time, time interval from injury to surgery, and Schatzker classification in the two groups. With respect to the clinical outcomes including the KSS score and Rasmussen's clinical score, there was also no significant difference (p>0.05). Nevertheless, the CRIF group had lower intra-operative blood loss, shorter hospitalization days, and better range of movement of the knee joint than the ORIF group (p<0.05). Furthermore, CRIF had better radiological results when compared to the ORIF group using Rasmussen's radiological score (p<0.05), although no significant difference was observed in TPW, ADD, MPTA, and PTSA between the two groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that CRIF could achieve comparable clinical outcomes and better radiological results for treating lateral TPFs as compared with conventional ORIF.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]