Kapukaya Ahmet, Subasi Mehmet, Arslan Huseyin, Tuzuner Tolga
Dicle University, Orthopedics, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
Injury. 2005 Dec;36(12):1480-7. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.05.005. Epub 2005 Oct 21.
While some researchers advocate primary arthrodesis for the treatment of open, severely comminuted tibial plafond fractures, others argue that an external fixator is an alternative. In this study, we obtained intermediate clinical and radiological outcomes on treating such fractures with a circular external fixator. Twelve patients with non-reducible, open tibial plafond fractures were treated with a circular external fixator and minimal osteo-synthesis. The fractures were grouped using a modification of the Ruedi and Allgower classification: eight, two, and two of the patients had Type III, IVA, and IVB fractures, respectively. The bone transport technique was applied in the patients with a Type IVB fracture. Four parameters were tracked in the patients: the reduction score of the joint surface, early complications, and the radiological and clinical findings of the ankle. The average follow-up period of the patients was 54.5 months. In the postoperative radiological examinations, the reduction score of the joint surface exceeded 15 in four patients and was 12-15 in eight patients. Type III and IVA fractures united with an average healing time of 4.25 months. Surface wound infection was observed in three patients. One patient each developed fibular osteomyelitis, claw toe, and 2cm shortness. Among the patients with Type IVB fractures, nonunion and malunion in the newly forming callus was observed in one patient, and nonunion alone was observed in another patient. On the final check, both the clinical and radiological findings were poor for all of the patients, with a reduction score exceeding 15. High-energy and poor joint surface reduction scores are two important factors affecting both the clinical and radiological results. For the fractures with reduction scores below 15, it is particularly difficult to predict the clinical results. Therefore, we recommend that such fractures be treated with a circular external fixator and believe that arthrodesis in accordance with the patient's choice is a desirable treatment method.
虽然一些研究人员主张采用一期关节融合术治疗开放性、严重粉碎性胫骨平台骨折,但另一些人则认为外固定器是一种替代方法。在本研究中,我们获得了使用环形外固定器治疗此类骨折的中期临床和放射学结果。12例不可复位的开放性胫骨平台骨折患者接受了环形外固定器和微创骨固定治疗。骨折采用改良的Ruedi和Allgower分类法分组:8例、2例和2例患者分别为III型、IVA 型和IVB型骨折。IVB型骨折患者采用骨搬运技术。对患者跟踪了四个参数:关节面复位评分、早期并发症以及踝关节的放射学和临床检查结果。患者的平均随访期为54.5个月。在术后放射学检查中,4例患者的关节面复位评分超过15分,8例患者的评分为12 - 15分。III型和IVA型骨折愈合,平均愈合时间为4.25个月。3例患者出现表面伤口感染。各有1例患者发生腓骨骨髓炎、爪形趾和2cm短缩。在IVB型骨折患者中,1例患者在新形成的骨痂中出现骨不连和畸形愈合,另1例患者仅出现骨不连。在最后检查时,所有患者的临床和放射学检查结果均较差,复位评分超过15分。高能量损伤和关节面复位评分低是影响临床和放射学结果的两个重要因素。对于复位评分低于15分的骨折,尤其难以预测临床结果。因此,我们建议用环形外固定器治疗此类骨折,并认为根据患者选择进行关节融合术是一种理想的治疗方法。