Dataset Information

Percutaneous Reduction and Internal Fixation for Monocondylar Fractures of Tibial Plateau: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Instead of extensive dissection of soft tissue around the fracture site, percutaneous techniques have unique advantages in managing displaced fragments, including preservation of soft tissues, less blood loss, lower risk of complications, and earlier functional rehabilitation. However, there are few systematic reviews on the effects of percutaneous reduction and internal fixation (PRIF) for tibial plateau fractures. A systematic search of Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases was performed for all publicly available data in March 2017 regarding the use of PRIF in treating monocondylar tibial plateau fractures. Basic information of included articles, surgical information, clinical outcomes, and concomitant soft tissue injuries were collected for analysis. Finally, a total of 20 articles including 561 patients were retrieved. Traffic accident was the most common cause of injury. Percutaneous techniques using bone tamp reduction were described in all studies. The majority (?85%) of patients were classified as excellent or good according to clinical and radiological Rasmussen scores. The overall complication rate was 6.6%, with loss of reduction the most frequent complication with an incidence of 2.4%. This systematic review indicated that PRIF was an optimal alternative that physicians should consider for the treatment of monocondylar tibial plateau fractures.

SUBMITTER: Chang HR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6594503 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Percutaneous Reduction and Internal Fixation for Monocondylar Fractures of Tibial Plateau: A Systematic Review.

Chang Heng-Rui HR Yu Yi-Yang YY Ju Lin-Lin LL Zheng Zhan-le ZL Chen Wei W Zhang Ying-Ze YZ

Orthopaedic surgery 20180516 2

Instead of extensive dissection of soft tissue around the fracture site, percutaneous techniques have unique advantages in managing displaced fragments, including preservation of soft tissues, less blood loss, lower risk of complications, and earlier functional rehabilitation. However, there are few systematic reviews on the effects of percutaneous reduction and internal fixation (PRIF) for tibial plateau fractures. A systematic search of Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases was performed for ...[more]

PMID: 29770577

Similar Datasets

Project description:To systemically review all studies reporting return to sport following tibial plateau fracture, in order to provide information on return rates and times to sport, and to assess variations in sporting outcome for different treatment methods.A systematic search of CINAHAL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science was performed in January 2017 using the keywords "tibial", "plateau", "fractures", "knee", "athletes", "sports", "non-operative", "conservative", "operative", "return to sport". All studies which recorded return rates and times to sport following tibial plateau fractures were included.Twenty-seven studies were included: 1 was a randomised controlled trial, 7 were prospective cohort studies, 16 were retrospective cohort studies, 3 were case series. One study reported on the outcome of conservative management (n = 3); 27 reported on the outcome of surgical management (n = 917). Nine studies reported on Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) (n = 193), 11 on Arthroscopic-Assisted Reduction Internal Fixation (ARIF) (n = 253) and 7 on Frame-Assisted Fixation (FRAME) (n = 262). All studies recorded "return to sport" rates. Only one study recorded a "return to sport" time. The return rate to sport for the total cohort was 70%. For the conservatively-managed fractures, the return rate was 100%. For the surgically-managed fractures, the return rate was 70%. For fractures managed with ORIF, the return rate was 60%. For fractures managed with ARIF, the return rate was 83%. For fractures managed with FRAME was 52%. The return rate for ARIF was found to be significantly greater than that for ORIF (OR 3.22, 95%CI: 2.09-4.97, P < 0.001) and for FRAME (OR 4.33, 95%CI: 2.89-6.50, P < 0.001). No difference was found between the return rates for ORIF and FRAME (OR 1.35, 95%CI: 0.92-1.96, P = 0.122). The recorded return time was 6.9 mo (median), from a study reporting on ORIF.Return rates to sport for tibial plateau fractures remain limited compared to other fractures. ARIF provides the best return rates. There is limited data regarding return times to sport. Further research is required to determine return times to sport, and to improve return rates to sport, through treatment and rehabilitation optimisation.

Project description:BackgroundOpen reduction internal fixation (ORIF) has long been the conventional procedure for managing displaced patella fracture. This surgical approach has certain drawbacks, which might affect clinical outcomes and patient prognosis. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF) was proposed to overcome these disadvantages. Few in-depth investigations have been performed to determine the superiority of MIPF over ORIF. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of MIPF and ORIF for patella fractures.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from November 26 to December 17, 2020. Non-English publications and pediatric orthopedic articles were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.4, with mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the pain score, knee range of motion, and joint functionality. The secondary outcomes were the surgical time, complications, and implant removal rate.ResultsSix articles with a total of 304 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that patients with MIPF had a significantly reduced pain score (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI = - 1.77 to -0.82; p < 0.00001) and increased knee extension angles (MD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.25; p = 0.009) at 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, knee flexion angles (MD = 8.96, 95% CI = 5.81 to 12.1; p < 0.00001) and joint functionality (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.86; p = 0.001) had statistically improved at 2 years. However, no difference was observed between MIPF and ORIF with regard to the surgical time. The risk of complications (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18; p < 0.00001) and implant removal rate (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.57; p = 0.003) were significantly lower with MIPF than with ORIF.ConclusionsMIPF is more favorable than ORIF in terms of the pain score, knee range of motion, joint functionality, complications, and implant removal rate. Thus, it can be adopted as an alternative to ORIF.

Dataset Information

Percutaneous Reduction and Internal Fixation for Monocondylar Fractures of Tibial Plateau: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Percutaneous Reduction and Internal Fixation for Monocondylar Fractures of Tibial Plateau: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets