$fracture frame review$

$fracture frame review$

There was no limit regarding the year of publication. The keywords used for the search were “tibial”, “plateau”, “fractures”, “knee”, “athletes”, “sports”, “non-operative”, “conservative”, “operative”, “return to sport”. No distinction was made regarding the location or nature of fracture, nor level and type of sports activity performed. This was to locate all articles, published in English language, in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on return rates and return times to sports following treatment for tibial plateau fractures. The aim of this systematic review was to assess all studies reporting return rates and times to sport following treatment for tibial plateau fractures, in order to provide clarification on the optimal treatment methods for this injury, as well as to provide prognostic information on return to sport following these fractures.Ī systematic literature search was carried out in January 2017 from the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Collaboration Database, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHAL, Google Scholar, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Scopus and Web of Science.

$fracture frame review$

While there is growing evidence on the clinical and radiological outcomes of such techniques, there remains limited evidence on return to sport following such injuries. Associated intra-articular injuries, when present, are also commonly treated in conjunction with fracture fixation. The choice of internal fixation can vary from cannulated screws to multiple locking plates, depending on the nature of the fracture. Techniques can be classified into three categories: Those which involve open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture (ORIF), those which involve arthroscopic-assisted reduction and fixation of the fracture (ARIF), and those which involve frame (external fixation) assisted fixation of the fracture (FRAME). A number of surgical techniques have been reported in the literature, and the choice of technique is directed by the fracture pattern. For displaced fractures, the standard treatment is surgical reduction and fixation of the fracture. All undisplaced fractures are routinely managed non-operatively, with a period of knee immobilisation for 4 to 8 wk in a cast or a brace: This is combined with sequential range of motion exercises and a graduated weightbearing protocol. The treatment of tibial plateau fracture is based on the location and displacement of the fracture. This arises for the fact that most outcome studies on this injury type provide validated functional outcomes scores, failing to differentiate specific details on recovery of sporting function. Despite sport being a well-documented cause for this injury, there is limited evidence on the predicted return rates and return times to sport following tibial plateau fractures. Such injuries normally arise from high energy trauma: The common reported mechanisms include road traffic accidents, falls from a height, pedestrian struck by motor vehicle or high-impact sporting collision.

$fracture frame review$

These fractures involve either the lateral tibial plateau, the medial tibial plateau, or both injury patterns are commonly classified by the Schatzker or the AO/OTA classification. Tibial plateau fractures comprise 1% of all fractures despite their limited frequency, due to their intra-articular nature, they commonly result in significant functional morbidity. The recorded return time was 6.9 mo (median), from a study reporting on ORIF. No difference was found between the return rates for ORIF and FRAME (OR 1.35, 95%CI: 0.92-1.96, P = 0.122). For fractures managed with FRAME was 52%. For fractures managed with ARIF, the return rate was 83%. For fractures managed with ORIF, the return rate was 60%. For the surgically-managed fractures, the return rate was 70%. For the conservatively-managed fractures, the return rate was 100%. The return rate to sport for the total cohort was 70%. Only one study recorded a “return to sport” time. All studies recorded “return to sport” rates. Nine studies reported on Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) ( n = 193), 11 on Arthroscopic-Assisted Reduction Internal Fixation (ARIF) ( n = 253) and 7 on Frame-Assisted Fixation (FRAME) ( n = 262). One study reported on the outcome of conservative management ( n = 3) 27 reported on the outcome of surgical management ( n = 917). Twenty-seven studies were included: 1 was a randomised controlled trial, 7 were prospective cohort studies, 16 were retrospective cohort studies, 3 were case series.

$fracture frame review$

Fracture frame review