Haller Justin M, Holt David, Rothberg David L, Kubiak Erik N, Higgins Thomas F
Department of Orthopaedics, University Orthopaedic Center, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jun;474(6):1436-44. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4583-4.
High-energy tibial plateau and tibial plafond fractures have a high complication rate and are frequently treated with a staged approach of spanning external fixation followed by definitive internal fixation after resolution of soft tissue swelling. A theoretical advantage to early spanning external fixation is that earlier fracture stabilization could prevent further soft tissue damage and potentially reduce the occurrence of subsequent infection. However, the relative urgency of applying the external fixator after injury is unknown, and whether delay in this intervention is correlated to subsequent treatment complications has not been examined.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is delay of more than 12 hours to spanning external fixation of high-energy tibial plateau and plafond fractures associated with increased (1) infection risk; (2) compartment syndrome risk; and (3) time to definitive fixation, length of hospitalization, or risk of secondary surgeries? We further stratified our results based on injury site: plateau and plafond. In practical clinical terms, many of these high-energy C-type articular fractures will arrive at the regional trauma center in the evening and this investigation attempted to explore if these injuries need to be placed in temporizing fixators that evening or if they may be safely addressed in a dedicated trauma room the next morning.
We performed a retrospective review of all patients at a Level I university trauma center with high-energy tibial plateau and plafond fractures who underwent staged treatment with a spanning external fixation followed by subsequent definitive internal fixation between 2006 and 2012. Patients who received a fixator within 12 hours of recorded injury time were classified as early external fixation; those who received a fixator greater than 12 hours from injury were classified as delayed external fixation. There were 80 patients (42 plateaus and 38 plafonds) in the early external fixation cohort and 79 patients (45 plateaus and 34 plafonds) in the delayed external fixation cohort. Deep infection rate was 13% in plateau fractures and 18% in plafond fractures. Rates of infection, compartment syndrome, secondary surgeries, time to definitive fixation, and length of hospitalization were recorded.
Controlling for differences in open fracture severity between groups, there was no difference in infection for plafond (early fixation: 12 of 38 [32%]; delayed fixation: seven of 34 [21%]; adjusted relative risk = 1.39 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.45-4.31], p = 0.573) and plateau (early fixation: eight of 42 [19%]; delayed fixation: nine of 45 [20%]; adjusted relative risk: 0.93 [95% CI, 0.31-2.78], p = 0.861) groups. For compartment syndrome risk, there was no difference between early and delayed groups for plateau fractures (early fixation: six of 42 [14%]; delayed fixation: three of 45 [7%]; relative risk = 0.47 [0.12-1.75], p = 0.304) and plafond fractures (early fixation: two of 38 [5%]; delayed fixation: three of 34 [9%]; relative risk = 1.67 [0.30-9.44], p = 0.662). There was no difference for length of hospitalization for early (9 ± 7 days) versus delayed fixation (9 ± 6 days) (mean difference = 0.24 [95% CI, -2.9 to 3.4], p = 0.878) for patients with plafond fracture. Similarly, there was no difference in length of hospitalization for early (10 ± 6 days) versus delayed fixation (8 ± 4 days) (mean difference = 1.6 [95% CI, -3.9 to 0.7], p = 0.170) for patients with plateau fracture. Time to definitive fixation for plateau fractures in the early external fixation group was 8 ± 6 days compared with 11 ± 7 days for the delayed external fixation group (mean difference = 2.9 [95% CI, 0.13-5.7], p = 0.040); there was no difference in time to definitive fixation for early (12 ± 7 days) versus delayed (12 ± 6 days) for patients with plafond fractures (mean difference = 0.39 [95% CI, -2.7 to 3.4], p = 0.801). There was no difference in risk of secondary surgeries between early external fixation (21 of 38 [55%]) and delayed external fixation (13 if 34 [38%]) for plafond fractures (adjusted relative risk = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.41-1.16], p = 0.165) and no difference between early fixation (24 of 42 [57%]) and delayed fixation (26 of 45 [58%]) for plateau fractures (adjusted relative risk = 1.0 [95% CI, 0.70-1.45], p = 1.00).
We were unable to detect a difference in infection, compartment syndrome, secondary procedures, or length of hospitalization for patients who undergo early versus delayed external fixation for high-energy tibial plateau or plafond fractures. This may affect decisions for resource use at trauma centers such as whether high-energy periarticular lower extremity fractures need to be spanned on the evening of presentation or whether this procedure may wait until the morning trauma room. Given the high complication rate of these injuries and clinical relevance of this question, this may also need to be examined in a prospective manner.
Level IV, therapeutic study.
高能胫骨平台骨折和胫骨远端关节面骨折的并发症发生率较高,常采用分期治疗方法,即先进行跨越性外固定,待软组织肿胀消退后再进行确定性内固定。早期应用跨越性外固定的理论优势在于,更早的骨折固定可防止进一步的软组织损伤,并有可能降低后续感染的发生率。然而,受伤后应用外固定器的相对紧迫性尚不清楚,且这种干预的延迟是否与后续治疗并发症相关也未得到研究。
问题/目的:高能胫骨平台骨折和胫骨远端关节面骨折在受伤12小时后延迟进行跨越性外固定是否会增加以下风险:(1)感染风险;(2)骨筋膜室综合征风险;(3)确定性固定时间、住院时间或二次手术风险?我们还根据损伤部位(平台骨折和胫骨远端关节面骨折)对结果进行了分层。在实际临床中,许多此类高能C型关节骨折会在晚上送达区域创伤中心,本研究试图探讨这些损伤是否需要在当晚置入临时固定器,还是可以在次日上午的专用创伤室安全处理。
我们对一所一级大学创伤中心2006年至2012年间所有接受分期治疗(先进行跨越性外固定,随后进行确定性内固定)的高能胫骨平台骨折和胫骨远端关节面骨折患者进行了回顾性研究。在记录的受伤时间12小时内接受固定器的患者被归类为早期外固定组;受伤超过12小时后接受固定器的患者被归类为延迟外固定组。早期外固定组有80例患者(42例平台骨折和38例胫骨远端关节面骨折),延迟外固定组有79例患者(45例平台骨折和34例胫骨远端关节面骨折)。平台骨折的深部感染率为13%,胫骨远端关节面骨折为18%。记录了感染率、骨筋膜室综合征发生率、二次手术情况、确定性固定时间和住院时间。
在控制两组开放性骨折严重程度差异后,胫骨远端关节面骨折组(早期固定:38例中的12例[32%];延迟固定:34例中的7例[21%];调整后相对风险 = 1.39 [95%置信区间{CI},0.45 - 4.31],p = 0.573)和平台骨折组(早期固定:42例中的8例[19%];延迟固定:45例中的9例[20%];调整后相对风险:0.93 [95% CI,0.31 - 2.78],p = 0.861)的感染情况无差异。对于骨筋膜室综合征风险,平台骨折的早期和延迟组之间无差异(早期固定:42例中的6例[14%];延迟固定:45例中的3例[7%];相对风险 = 0.47 [0.12 - 1.75],p = 0.304),胫骨远端关节面骨折也无差异(早期固定:38例中的2例[5%];延迟固定:34例中的3例[9%];相对风险 = 1.67 [0.30 - 9.44],p = 0.662)。胫骨远端关节面骨折患者早期(9 ± 7天)与延迟固定(9 ± 6天)的住院时间无差异(平均差异 = 0.24 [95% CI, - 2.9至3.4],p = 0.878)。同样,平台骨折患者早期(10 ± 6天)与延迟固定(8 ± 4天)的住院时间也无差异(平均差异 = 1.6 [95% CI, - 3.9至0.7],p = 0.170)。早期外固定组平台骨折的确定性固定时间为8 ± 6天,延迟外固定组为11 ± 7天(平均差异 = 2.9 [95% CI,0.13 - 5.7],p = 0.040);胫骨远端关节面骨折患者早期(12 ± 7天)与延迟(12 ± 6天)的确定性固定时间无差异(平均差异 = 0.39 [95% CI, - 2.7至3.4],p = 0.801)。胫骨远端关节面骨折早期外固定(38例中的21例[55%])和延迟外固定(34例中的13例[38%])的二次手术风险无差异(调整后相对风险 = 0.69 [95% CI,0.41 - 1.16],p = 0.165),平台骨折早期固定(42例中的24例[57%])和延迟固定(45例中的26例[58%])也无差异(调整后相对风险 = 1.0 [95% CI,0.70 - 1.45],p = 1.00)。
对于高能胫骨平台骨折或胫骨远端关节面骨折患者,早期与延迟外固定在感染、骨筋膜室综合征、二次手术或住院时间方面,我们未能检测到差异。这可能会影响创伤中心资源使用的决策,例如高能关节周围下肢骨折在就诊当晚是否需要进行跨越性固定,或者该手术是否可以等到次日上午的创伤室进行。鉴于这些损伤的高并发症发生率以及该问题的临床相关性,可能还需要进行前瞻性研究。
IV级,治疗性研究。