Ali Usman, Durrani Muhammad Younus Khan, Mariam Fizzah, Abidi Syed Muhammad Aqeel, Rashid Rizwan Haroon, Ur Rashid Haroon, Mohib Yasir
From the Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2025 Jun 11;9(6). doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00244. eCollection 2025 Jun 1.
Tibial plateau fractures are complex injuries involving the articular surface of the proximal tibia and often accompanied by soft-tissue damage. These fractures are challenging due to their potential to disrupt knee joint stability and function. Schatzker classification is widely used to categorize these fractures globally. Several different treatment modalities, focused on stabilizing the knee joint while restoring pain-free motion, are used for treatment. Schatzker type V and VI tibial plateau fractures are treated with two different approaches: open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction and external fixation (CREF). The primary objective is to assess and compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of ORIF versus CREF for Schatzker type V and VI tibial plateau fractures.
This research was done retrospectively at the Aga Khan University Hospital. This study comprised 60 patients with type V and VI tibial plateau fractures who underwent internal fixation or external fixation from 2016 to 2022. Patients were divided into two groups with 30 patients each: the CREF group (patients treated with closed reduction and external fixation using Ilizarov as external fixator), and the ORIF group.
The CREF group consisted of 1 type V and 29 type VI fractures, whereas the ORIF group included 20 type V and 10 type VI fractures. The Oxford Knee Score was 40 points for each group at the 6-month follow-up. At the last follow-up, the Oxford Knee Score was 45 points for the CREF group and 44 points for the ORIF group.
In conclusion, our study highlights the benefits of CREF over ORIF for proximal tibial fractures in low- and middle-income countries. CREF showed shorter surgical duration and wait times, reduced blood loss, and fewer complications, particularly infections. Both groups had comparable radiological and functional outcomes, with a slight preference for CREF. These findings emphasize the potential of CREF in resource-constrained settings.
Level 3.
胫骨平台骨折是涉及胫骨近端关节面的复杂损伤,常伴有软组织损伤。由于这些骨折有可能破坏膝关节稳定性和功能,因此具有挑战性。Schatzker分类法在全球范围内被广泛用于对这些骨折进行分类。几种不同的治疗方式被用于治疗,重点是在恢复无痛活动的同时稳定膝关节。Schatzker V型和VI型胫骨平台骨折采用两种不同的方法治疗:切开复位内固定(ORIF)和闭合复位外固定(CREF)。主要目的是评估和比较ORIF与CREF治疗Schatzker V型和VI型胫骨平台骨折的临床和放射学结果。
本研究在阿迦汗大学医院进行回顾性研究。本研究包括60例2016年至2022年期间接受内固定或外固定的V型和VI型胫骨平台骨折患者。患者分为两组,每组30例:CREF组(使用Ilizarov作为外固定架进行闭合复位和外固定治疗的患者)和ORIF组。
CREF组包括1例V型骨折和29例VI型骨折,而ORIF组包括20例V型骨折和10例VI型骨折。6个月随访时,每组的牛津膝关节评分均为40分。在最后一次随访时,CREF组的牛津膝关节评分为45分,ORIF组为44分。
总之,我们的研究强调了在低收入和中等收入国家,CREF治疗胫骨近端骨折优于ORIF。CREF显示手术时间和等待时间更短,失血减少,并发症更少,尤其是感染。两组在放射学和功能结果方面具有可比性,略微倾向于CREF。这些发现强调了CREF在资源有限环境中的潜力。
3级。