Comparison of therapeutic effects between double traction-assisted reduction internal fixation and open reduction internal fixation for tibial plateau fractures / 中华骨科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To explore the clinical efficacy of double traction-assisted reduction internal fixation and open reduction internal fixation in treating tibial plateau fractures.Methods:Data of patients with tibial plateau fracture admitted to West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2016 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and patients were divided into two groups according to treatment method: double traction-closed reduction internal fixation group (referred to as double traction group) and open reduction internal fixation group (referred to as open group). The double traction group included 21 patients, with 15 male and 6 female patients, with a mean age of 56.14±9.24 years (range, 45-72 years). Schatzker classification of fractures 1 type I, 2 type II, 2 type III, 5 type IV, 6 type V, and 5 type VI. The open group included 29 patients, with 20 male and 9 female patients, with a mean age of 58.97±4.84 years (range, 47-70 years). Schatzker classification of fractures 2 type I, 4 type II, 8 type III, 4 type IV, 5 type V, and 6 type VI. The surgical time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stays, fracture healing time, postoperative time to full weight bearing, Rasmussen score, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score, and complications were compared between the two groups of patients.Results:Both groups were followed up for 24 to 36 months, with an average of 30 months. There were significant differences in the operation time (92.61±6.22 min vs. 47.92±9.53 min), incision length (4.54±0.56 cm vs. 6.26±0.51 cm), and intraoperative blood loss (47.05±9.72 ml vs. 156.82±4.62 ml) between the group treated with closed reduction and double traction and the group treated with open reduction, with statistical significance ( t=18.83, 10.78, 53.24, P<0.001). There were also significant differences in the hospitalization time (5.35±0.41 d vs. 5.84±0.78 d), fracture healing time (3.72±0.74 months vs. 4.22±0.42 months), and time to full weight-bearing after surgery (11.29±1.10 weeks vs. 15.07±1.96 weeks) between the two groups, with statistical significance ( t=2.30, P=0.026; t=3.38, P<0.001; t=7.96, P<0.001). The HSS score at 6 months after surgery in the group treated with closed reduction and double traction was 81.61±2.32 points, which was higher than the score in the group treated with open reduction (77.66±4.01 points), with statistical significance ( t=4.07, P<0.001); at 12 months after surgery, the Rasmussen score in the group treated with closed reduction and double traction was 16.71±1.00 points, which was higher than the score in the group treated with open reduction (13.79±1.42 points), with statistical significance ( t=8.05, P<0.001). There was no fracture malunion or compartment syndrome occurred in both groups. The incidence of complications was 5% (1/21) in the group treated with closed reduction and double traction, and 10% (3/29) in the group treated with open reduction, with statistical significance (χ 2=0.52, P=0.473). Conclusion:The advantages of double traction-assisted reduction and internal fixation for tibial plateau fractures include minimal trauma, minimal bleeding, early mobilization, and shorter fracture healing time. It is a safe and reliable treatment method.