Tibial plateau fracture management: arthroscopically-assisted versus ORIF procedure – clinical and radiological comparison

Abstract

IntroductionTibial plateau fractures are articular injuries that may influence final functional outcome of the knee. Although these fractures comprise only 1% of all fractures, the fracture pattern is usually complex and requires anatomical reduction and absolutely stable fixation to achieve satisfactory results. The development of knee osteoarthritis is a common late complication and it can be strongly influenced by additional, underestimated cartilage defects, and meniscal and ligament tears. Materials and methodsBetween January 2012 and February 2015, a total of 78 patients with tibial plateau fractures (Schatzker type I-III) were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: one group was treated with arthroscopically-assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) and the other with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The final number of patients was 75; 40 in the ARIF group and 35 in the ORIF group. Radiography and computed tomography were used to assess fracture pattern. An immediate postoperative radiograph was performed, and then repeated at 6 weeks, and 3,6 and 12 months after surgery. Demographic data (age and sex), additional intraarticular injuries, hospital stay and complications were noted, and clinical and radiological Rasmunssen score at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery were evaluated. ResultsAdditional intraarticular lesions were found in 27 patients; 20 in the ARIF group and 7 in the ORIF group (p = 0.06). There was a statistically significant difference in average duration of hospital stay: 3.10 ± 0.63 days for the ARIF group and 5.51 ± 1.66 days for the ORIF group (p = 0.0001). All fractures healed within 3 months following surgery. The overall complication rate was 12%. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.63). Clinical and radiological scores were excellent in most patients in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in average clinical and radiological Rasmunssen scores between the two groups. ConclusionsBoth ARIF and ORIF can provide equally good results; however, ARIF seems to offer a more precise evaluation and treatment of associated intraarticular lesions and to reduce the duration of hospital stay.