Comparative study on the efficacy of structural support fixation vs. conventional fixation for depressed tibial plateau fractures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of structural support fixation vs. conventional fixation for depressed tibial plateau fractures (TPFs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent surgical treatment for depressed TPFs at our hospital between November 2019 and September 2023. Forty-six patients with TPFs who had surgical indications were included. Based on the surgical procedures, patients were categorized into the structural support group receiving locking plate + cage fixation, and the conventional group receiving locking plate + granular bone grafting. The following parameters were evaluated and compared, including operative time, blood loss, time to full weight-bearing, fracture healing time, loss of tibial plateau height, quality of fracture reduction and alignment, hospital for special surgery knee score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score. Intergroup differences were analyzed using independent-sample t-tests or the rank-sum test. RESULTS: A total of 46 eligible patients completed the follow-up (20 in the structural support group, 26 in the conventional group). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in the mean age, sex, body mass index, injury mechanism, or time from injury to surgery (p = 0.276, 0.860, 0.615, 0.160, 0.065, respectively). The mean operative time was 120.7 min in the structural support group and 164.2 min in the conventional group, with the mean blood loss of 120.0 mL and 168.5 mL, respectively. Neither operative time nor blood loss showed significant differences (p = 0.067 and p = 0.309). The mean follow-up duration was 20.2 months (structural support group) and 20.4 months (conventional group), with no significant difference (p = 0.987). At the final follow-up, the structural support group exhibited significantly less secondary step-off compared to the conventional group (0.3 mm vs. 0.7 mm, p < 0.001). While hospital for special surgery functional scores showed no significant difference (94.1 vs. 88.1, p = 0.066), the structural support group had significantly better Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (1.4 vs. 6.3, p = 0.001), with superior outcomes in pain, stiffness, and functional difficulty subscales (p = 0.009, 0.004, 0.003, respectively). No adverse events (e.g., infection, nonunion, or refracture) were found in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional fixation, locking plate combined with cage effectively reduces secondary step-off in depressed TPFs and significantly improves pain relief and knee function.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».