Biz Carlo, Stecco Carla, Perissinotto Samuele, Zhao Xiaoxiao, Ierardi Raffaele, Puce Luca, Migliorini Filippo, Bragazzi Nicola Luigi, Ruggieri Pietro
Orthopedics and Orthopedic Oncology, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology DiSCOG, University of Padova, Via N. Giustiniani 3, 35128 Padova, Italy.
Institute of Human Anatomy, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Via A. Gabelli 65, 35121 Padua, Italy.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 May 22;15(11):1304. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15111304.
: Tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) are complex injuries often leading to long-term complications such as knee instability, limited range of motion, and osteoarthritis. Accurate diagnostic evaluations combining subjective and objective assessments are essential for identifying functional limitations, guiding rehabilitation, and improving recovery outcomes. This study examines the role of diagnostic predictors in differentiating recovery trajectories in two groups of patients treated for closed TPFs by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), comparing patients with less severe fractures and patients with more severe fractures (BCFs). : A consecutive series of patients with a diagnosis of TPFs treated by ORIF at our institution between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed in this retrospective study. All injured patients were divided according to the Schatzker classification into two groups: mono-condylar (MCF) and bi-condylar (BCF) fracture patient groups. Diagnostic evaluations included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as KOOS, IKDC, and AKSS, alongside objective assessments of functional recovery using dynamometers, force platform tests (single-leg stance and squat jump variations), and measurements of active range of motion (AROM). : A total of 28 patients were included: 17 in the MCF patient group (Schatzker: 12 II; 5 III; 0 IV) and 11 in the BCF patient group (Schatzker: 6 V; 5 VI). Patients with less severe MCFs exhibited significantly better recovery outcomes, including higher KOOS (86.0 vs. 64.6, = 0.04), IKDC (80.3 vs. 64.6, = 0.04), and AKSS (95.3 vs. 70.5, = 0.02) scores. They also demonstrated greater knee flexion (122.8° vs. 105.5°, = 0.04) and faster neuromuscular recovery, as evidenced by higher rates of force development (RFD) during dynamic performance tests. Conversely, patients with more severe BCFs showed lower RFD values, indicating slower recovery and greater rehabilitation challenges. : Integrating diagnostic tools like PROMs, AROM, and neuromuscular performance tests provides valuable insights into recovery after ORIF for TPFs. Fracture severity significantly impacts functional recovery patients with MCFs showing better outcomes and faster neuromuscular recovery, while subjects with BCFs require a longer rehabilitation treatment focusing on neuromuscular re-education and soft tissue recovery.
胫骨平台骨折(TPFs)是复杂的损伤,常导致长期并发症,如膝关节不稳定、活动范围受限和骨关节炎。结合主观和客观评估的准确诊断评估对于识别功能限制、指导康复和改善恢复结果至关重要。本研究探讨了诊断预测指标在区分两组接受切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗的闭合性TPFs患者恢复轨迹中的作用,比较了骨折较轻的患者和骨折较严重的患者(BCFs)。:在这项回顾性研究中,分析了2009年至2016年期间在我们机构接受ORIF治疗的一系列连续诊断为TPFs的患者。所有受伤患者根据Schatzker分类分为两组:单髁(MCF)和双髁(BCF)骨折患者组。诊断评估包括患者报告的结局指标(PROMs),如膝关节损伤和骨关节炎疗效评分(KOOS)、国际膝关节文献委员会主观膝关节评分(IKDC)和美国膝关节协会评分(AKSS),以及使用测力计、力平台测试(单腿站立和深蹲跳变体)对功能恢复的客观评估,和主动活动范围(AROM)测量。:总共纳入了28例患者:MCF患者组17例(Schatzker:12例II型;5例III型;0例IV型)和BCF患者组11例(Schatzker:6例V型;5例VI型)。骨折较轻的MCF患者表现出明显更好的恢复结果,包括更高的KOOS(86.0对64.6,P = 0.04)、IKDC(80.3对64.6,P = 0.04)和AKSS(95.3对70.5,P = 0.02)评分。他们还表现出更大的膝关节屈曲度(122.8°对105.5°,P = 0.04)和更快的神经肌肉恢复,动态性能测试中更高的力发展速率(RFD)证明了这一点。相反,骨折较严重的BCF患者显示出较低的RFD值,表明恢复较慢且康复挑战更大。:整合PROMs、AROM和神经肌肉性能测试等诊断工具可为TPFs的ORIF术后恢复提供有价值的见解。骨折严重程度显著影响功能恢复,MCF患者恢复结果更好且神经肌肉恢复更快,而BCF患者需要更长时间的康复治疗,重点是神经肌肉再教育和软组织恢复。