Comparative study on effectiveness of double reverse traction reduction versus open reduction internal fixation in treating complex tibial plateau fractures.
10.7507/1002-1892.202504101
- Author:
Hao LIU
1
;
Zhihao LIN
1
;
Yueyan MA
1
;
Haifeng GONG
1
;
Tianrui WANG
1
;
Fagang YE
1
;
Yanling HU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Trauma Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong, 266035, P. R. China.
- Publication Type:English Abstract
- Keywords:
Tibial plateau fracture;
closed reduction;
complex fracture;
internal fixation;
minimally invasive surgery;
traction reduction
- MeSH:
Humans;
Tibial Fractures/surgery*;
Fracture Fixation, Internal/methods*;
Male;
Female;
Traction/methods*;
Retrospective Studies;
Middle Aged;
Adult;
Open Fracture Reduction/methods*;
Treatment Outcome;
Range of Motion, Articular;
Fracture Healing;
Operative Time;
Length of Stay;
Blood Loss, Surgical;
Aged;
Tibial Plateau Fractures
- From:
Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery
2025;39(7):795-800
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and advantages of the double reverse traction reduction versus open reduction internal fixation for treating complex tibial plateau fractures.
METHODS:A clinical data of 25 patients with Schatzker type Ⅴ or Ⅵ tibial plateau fractures, who met the selection criteria and were admitted between January 2019 and January 2023, was retrospectively analyzed. Thirteen patients underwent double reverse traction reduction and internal fixation (double reverse traction group), while 12 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation (traditional open group). There was no significant difference in the baseline data (age, gender, injury mechanism, Schatzker classification, interval between injury and operation) between the two groups ( P>0.05). The effectiveness were evaluated and compared between the two groups, included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, hospital stay, full weight-bearing time, complications, fracture healing, Rasmussen radiological score (reduction quality), knee Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and knee flexion/extension range of motion.
RESULTS:The double reverse traction group demonstrated significantly superior outcomes in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, incision length, and time to full weight-bearing ( P<0.05). Two patients in traditional open group developed incisional complications, while the double reverse traction group had no complication. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complication between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 24-36 months (mean, 30 months), with no significant difference in follow-up duration between groups ( P>0.05). Fractures healed in both groups with no significant difference in healing time ( P>0.05). At 6 months after operation, Rasmussen radiological scores and grading showed no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05); the double reverse traction group had significantly higher HSS scores compared to the traditional open group ( P<0.05). At 12 months after operation, knee flexion/extension range of motion were significantly greater in the double reverse traction group than in the traditional open group ( P<0.05).
CONCLUSION:Double reverse traction reduction offers advantages over traditional open reduction, including shorter operation time, reduced blood loss, minimized soft tissue trauma, and improved joint functional recovery. It is a safe and reliable method for complex tibial plateau fractures.
