Postoperative Outcomes of Single and Double Plating Osteosynthesis for Proximal Metaphyseal Tibial Fractures

IF 0.2 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
S. Ghaffari, Alireza Kazemi, Mehran Razavipour, M. Shayestehazar, S. Talebi, Zahra Mardanshahi
{"title":"Postoperative Outcomes of Single and Double Plating Osteosynthesis for Proximal Metaphyseal Tibial Fractures","authors":"S. Ghaffari, Alireza Kazemi, Mehran Razavipour, M. Shayestehazar, S. Talebi, Zahra Mardanshahi","doi":"10.30491/TM.2020.228779.1107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Optimal management of proximal tibial fractures remains to be a clinical challenge. Most studies on this condition have been conducted on cadaver specimens, and few have compared the clinical outcomes of single and double plating methods in these fractures. \nObjectives: The current study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications of the single and double plating methods in the treatment of metaphysical proximal tibial fracture. \nMethods: We treated 40 patients with metaphyseal tibial fracture with single or double plating methods (20 in each group). Patients were followed after 2 and 6 weeks, and 3 and 6 months; all were assessed for malunion, nonunion, and malalignment deformities. \nResults: In the double plating group, numerically better flexion and extension range was not significant (p >0.05). However, in the interpretation of the Lysholm Knee Score questionnaire, a significantly higher proportion of good and excellent postoperative outcomes were found in the double plating group (p=0.041). In the double plating group, 15%, 15%, 40%, and 30% of patients were categorized as having poor, fair, good, and excellent outcomes, respectively. These proportions were 30%, 45%, 15%, and 10% among the single plating group respectively. Moreover, we detected positive valgus stress test in the single plating method in 30% of the cases, compared with 5% in the double plating method (p=0.037). Similarly, we observed that 20% of the cases with positive varus stress test in the single plating method, compared with the double plating method that had no cases who tested positive (p=0.035). The observed significant differences survived after we controlled for the positive stress test using regression models. It should be noted that in the single plating group, one case of valgus malalignment with 10° and one case of varus malalignment with 5° were observed. \nConclusion: Our results highlight that the choice of the double plating method to be associated with significantly better outcomes and fewer complications in the treatment of proximal tibial metaphyseal fracture.","PeriodicalId":23249,"journal":{"name":"Trauma monthly","volume":"61 1","pages":"128-133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma monthly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30491/TM.2020.228779.1107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Optimal management of proximal tibial fractures remains to be a clinical challenge. Most studies on this condition have been conducted on cadaver specimens, and few have compared the clinical outcomes of single and double plating methods in these fractures. Objectives: The current study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications of the single and double plating methods in the treatment of metaphysical proximal tibial fracture. Methods: We treated 40 patients with metaphyseal tibial fracture with single or double plating methods (20 in each group). Patients were followed after 2 and 6 weeks, and 3 and 6 months; all were assessed for malunion, nonunion, and malalignment deformities. Results: In the double plating group, numerically better flexion and extension range was not significant (p >0.05). However, in the interpretation of the Lysholm Knee Score questionnaire, a significantly higher proportion of good and excellent postoperative outcomes were found in the double plating group (p=0.041). In the double plating group, 15%, 15%, 40%, and 30% of patients were categorized as having poor, fair, good, and excellent outcomes, respectively. These proportions were 30%, 45%, 15%, and 10% among the single plating group respectively. Moreover, we detected positive valgus stress test in the single plating method in 30% of the cases, compared with 5% in the double plating method (p=0.037). Similarly, we observed that 20% of the cases with positive varus stress test in the single plating method, compared with the double plating method that had no cases who tested positive (p=0.035). The observed significant differences survived after we controlled for the positive stress test using regression models. It should be noted that in the single plating group, one case of valgus malalignment with 10° and one case of varus malalignment with 5° were observed. Conclusion: Our results highlight that the choice of the double plating method to be associated with significantly better outcomes and fewer complications in the treatment of proximal tibial metaphyseal fracture.
胫骨近端干骺端骨折单钢板和双钢板接骨术的术后疗效
背景:胫骨近端骨折的最佳治疗仍然是一个临床挑战。大多数关于这种情况的研究都是在尸体标本上进行的,很少有比较单钢板和双钢板方法在这些骨折中的临床结果。目的:比较单钢板和双钢板治疗胫骨近端骨折的术后疗效和并发症。方法:对40例胫骨干骺端骨折采用单钢板或双钢板治疗,每组20例。随访时间分别为2周、6周、3月、6月;评估所有患者的不愈合、不愈合和不对准畸形。结果:双钢板组屈伸幅度明显优于双钢板组,差异无统计学意义(p >0.05)。然而,在Lysholm膝关节评分问卷的解释中,双钢板组术后良好和优的比例明显更高(p=0.041)。在双镀组中,分别有15%、15%、40%和30%的患者被归类为预后差、一般、良好和极好。单镀组的比例分别为30%、45%、15%和10%。此外,我们在30%的病例中检测到外翻应力试验阳性,而在两次电镀中为5% (p=0.037)。同样,我们观察到单次电镀法内翻应力测试阳性病例占20%,而双次电镀法无阳性病例(p=0.035)。在我们使用回归模型对正压力测试进行控制后,观察到的显著差异仍然存在。值得注意的是,在单钢板组中,观察到1例外翻对准10°,1例外翻对准5°。结论:我们的研究结果表明,选择双钢板方法治疗胫骨近端干骺端骨折的疗效更好,并发症更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Trauma monthly
Trauma monthly EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信