Cargando…

A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures

BACKGROUND: Tibial spine fractures (TSFs) are typically treated nonoperatively when nondisplaced and operatively when completely displaced. However, it is unclear whether displaced but hinged (type 2) TSFs should be treated operatively or nonoperatively. PURPOSE: To compare operative versus nonopera...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prasad, Niyathi, Aoyama, Julien T., Ganley, Theodore J., Ellis, Henry B., Mistovich, R. Justin, Yen, Yi-Meng, Fabricant, Peter D., Green, Daniel W., Cruz, Aristides I., McKay, Scott, Kushare, Indranil, Schmale, Gregory A., Rhodes, Jason T., Jagodzinski, Jason, Sachleben, Brant C., Sargent, M. Catherine, Lee, R. Jay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7841676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33553452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120975410
_version_ 1783643858656034816
author Prasad, Niyathi
Aoyama, Julien T.
Ganley, Theodore J.
Ellis, Henry B.
Mistovich, R. Justin
Yen, Yi-Meng
Fabricant, Peter D.
Green, Daniel W.
Cruz, Aristides I.
McKay, Scott
Kushare, Indranil
Schmale, Gregory A.
Rhodes, Jason T.
Jagodzinski, Jason
Sachleben, Brant C.
Sargent, M. Catherine
Lee, R. Jay
author_facet Prasad, Niyathi
Aoyama, Julien T.
Ganley, Theodore J.
Ellis, Henry B.
Mistovich, R. Justin
Yen, Yi-Meng
Fabricant, Peter D.
Green, Daniel W.
Cruz, Aristides I.
McKay, Scott
Kushare, Indranil
Schmale, Gregory A.
Rhodes, Jason T.
Jagodzinski, Jason
Sachleben, Brant C.
Sargent, M. Catherine
Lee, R. Jay
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Tibial spine fractures (TSFs) are typically treated nonoperatively when nondisplaced and operatively when completely displaced. However, it is unclear whether displaced but hinged (type 2) TSFs should be treated operatively or nonoperatively. PURPOSE: To compare operative versus nonoperative treatment of type 2 TSFs in terms of overall complication rate, ligamentous laxity, knee range of motion, and rate of subsequent operation. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We reviewed 164 type 2 TSFs in patients aged 6 to 16 years treated between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2019. Excluded were patients with previous TSFs, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, femoral or tibial fractures, or grade 2 or 3 injury of the collateral ligaments or posterior cruciate ligament. Patients were placed according to treatment into the operative group (n = 123) or nonoperative group (n = 41). The only patient characteristic that differed between groups was body mass index (22 [nonoperative] vs 20 [operative]; P = .02). Duration of follow-up was longer in the operative versus the nonoperative group (11 vs 6.9 months). At final follow-up, 74% of all patients had recorded laxity examinations. RESULTS: At final follow-up, the nonoperative group had more ACL laxity than did the operative group (P < .01). Groups did not differ significantly in overall complication rate, reoperation rate, or total range of motion (all, P > .05). The nonoperative group had a higher rate of subsequent new TSFs and ACL injuries requiring surgery (4.9%) when compared with the operative group (0%; P = .01). The operative group had a higher rate of arthrofibrosis (8.9%) than did the nonoperative group (0%; P = .047). Reoperation was most common for hardware removal (14%), lysis of adhesions (6.5%), and manipulation under anesthesia (6.5%). CONCLUSION: Although complication rates were similar between nonoperatively and operatively treated type 2 TSFs, patients treated nonoperatively had higher rates of residual laxity and subsequent tibial spine and ACL surgery, whereas patients treated operatively had a higher rate of arthrofibrosis. These findings should be considered when treating patients with type 2 TSF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7841676
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78416762021-02-05 A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures Prasad, Niyathi Aoyama, Julien T. Ganley, Theodore J. Ellis, Henry B. Mistovich, R. Justin Yen, Yi-Meng Fabricant, Peter D. Green, Daniel W. Cruz, Aristides I. McKay, Scott Kushare, Indranil Schmale, Gregory A. Rhodes, Jason T. Jagodzinski, Jason Sachleben, Brant C. Sargent, M. Catherine Lee, R. Jay Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Tibial spine fractures (TSFs) are typically treated nonoperatively when nondisplaced and operatively when completely displaced. However, it is unclear whether displaced but hinged (type 2) TSFs should be treated operatively or nonoperatively. PURPOSE: To compare operative versus nonoperative treatment of type 2 TSFs in terms of overall complication rate, ligamentous laxity, knee range of motion, and rate of subsequent operation. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We reviewed 164 type 2 TSFs in patients aged 6 to 16 years treated between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2019. Excluded were patients with previous TSFs, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, femoral or tibial fractures, or grade 2 or 3 injury of the collateral ligaments or posterior cruciate ligament. Patients were placed according to treatment into the operative group (n = 123) or nonoperative group (n = 41). The only patient characteristic that differed between groups was body mass index (22 [nonoperative] vs 20 [operative]; P = .02). Duration of follow-up was longer in the operative versus the nonoperative group (11 vs 6.9 months). At final follow-up, 74% of all patients had recorded laxity examinations. RESULTS: At final follow-up, the nonoperative group had more ACL laxity than did the operative group (P < .01). Groups did not differ significantly in overall complication rate, reoperation rate, or total range of motion (all, P > .05). The nonoperative group had a higher rate of subsequent new TSFs and ACL injuries requiring surgery (4.9%) when compared with the operative group (0%; P = .01). The operative group had a higher rate of arthrofibrosis (8.9%) than did the nonoperative group (0%; P = .047). Reoperation was most common for hardware removal (14%), lysis of adhesions (6.5%), and manipulation under anesthesia (6.5%). CONCLUSION: Although complication rates were similar between nonoperatively and operatively treated type 2 TSFs, patients treated nonoperatively had higher rates of residual laxity and subsequent tibial spine and ACL surgery, whereas patients treated operatively had a higher rate of arthrofibrosis. These findings should be considered when treating patients with type 2 TSF. SAGE Publications 2021-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7841676/ /pubmed/33553452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120975410 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Prasad, Niyathi
Aoyama, Julien T.
Ganley, Theodore J.
Ellis, Henry B.
Mistovich, R. Justin
Yen, Yi-Meng
Fabricant, Peter D.
Green, Daniel W.
Cruz, Aristides I.
McKay, Scott
Kushare, Indranil
Schmale, Gregory A.
Rhodes, Jason T.
Jagodzinski, Jason
Sachleben, Brant C.
Sargent, M. Catherine
Lee, R. Jay
A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures
title A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures
title_full A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures
title_fullStr A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures
title_short A Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Treatment of Type 2 Tibial Spine Fractures
title_sort comparison of nonoperative and operative treatment of type 2 tibial spine fractures
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7841676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33553452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120975410
work_keys_str_mv AT acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT prasadniyathi acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT aoyamajulient acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT ganleytheodorej acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT ellishenryb acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT mistovichrjustin acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT yenyimeng acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT fabricantpeterd acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT greendanielw acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT cruzaristidesi acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT mckayscott acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT kushareindranil acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT schmalegregorya acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT rhodesjasont acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT jagodzinskijason acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT sachlebenbrantc acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT sargentmcatherine acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT leerjay acomparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT prasadniyathi comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT aoyamajulient comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT ganleytheodorej comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT ellishenryb comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT mistovichrjustin comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT yenyimeng comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT fabricantpeterd comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT greendanielw comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT cruzaristidesi comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT mckayscott comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT kushareindranil comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT schmalegregorya comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT rhodesjasont comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT jagodzinskijason comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT sachlebenbrantc comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT sargentmcatherine comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures
AT leerjay comparisonofnonoperativeandoperativetreatmentoftype2tibialspinefractures