AI Article Synopsis

  • Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures are complex injuries, and this study compares the effectiveness of acute ORIF (aORIF) versus staged ORIF (sORIF) in treating them.
  • The research involved a review of 186 patients treated in two major trauma centers, focusing on outcomes like infection rates and surgery duration.
  • Results showed that while aORIF had shorter surgery times and lower rates of superficial infections and unplanned surgeries, there were no significant differences in other complications between the two methods, highlighting aORIF's safety when done by skilled surgeons.

Article Abstract

Background: Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures pose many treatment challenges due to their complex fracture patterns and associated soft tissue compromise. We aim to evaluate outcomes of acute ORIF (aORIF) versus staged ORIF (sORIF) of high energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 186 patients at two high-volume Level I trauma centers. One hundred one patients underwent aORIF and 85 underwent sORIF between 2011 and 2019. Clinical outcomes of interest included operative time, wound dehiscence, superficial and deep infection, nonunion, flap coverage, arthrodesis, and early conversion to arthroplasty.

Results: Patients had a median follow up of 12 months (6-98 months). The sORIF group had a higher ISS (p = 0.02) and a higher rate of open fractures (24.7% vs 11.9%, p = 0.03). The groups were statistically similar in other demographics and co-morbidities. Operative time was significantly shorter in the aORIF group (157 vs 213 min., p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in wound dehiscence, deep infection, flap coverage, nonunion, unplanned reoperation, or post-traumatic arthritis between groups. However, aORIF was associated with a significantly lower rate of superficial infection (p = 0.01), arthroplasty (p = 0.003) and unplanned reoperation (p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of only the 41C3 fractures showed a lower rate of superficial infections in the aORIF group (p = 0.04). No difference in complications was found between the fracture subgroups.

Conclusion: We found no increased risk of complications with aORIF compared to sORIF for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. While not all injuries may be appropriate for aORIF, our results demonstrate the safety of aORIF when patients are properly selected by experienced fracture surgeons.

Level Of Evidence: Level III.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03815-4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bicondylar tibial
12
tibial plateau
12
versus staged
8
plateau fractures
8
operative time
8
acute versus
4
staged fixation
4
fixation bicondylar
4
fractures dual
4
dual centre
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!