Tibial plateau fractures have a broad spectrum of presentations, depending on the mechanism and energy of the trauma. Many classification systems are currently available to describe these injuries. In 1974, Schatzker proposed a classification based on a two-dimensional representation of the fracture. His classification with the six-principles types became one of the most utilized classification systems for tibial plateau fractures. More than four decades after this original publication, we are revisiting each fracture type in the light of information made available by computed tomography, which today comprises a standard tool in assessing articular fractures. The classification we are proposing relies on the fact that the tibial plateau has two anatomical columns, lateral and medial. We are introducing a virtual equator which splits the articular surface in the coronal plane. The equator divides each column into two quadrants, the anterior (A) and the posterior (P). Unicondylar fracture types (I to IV) have now additional modifiers A (anterior) and P (posterior) to describe the exact spatial location of the primary fracture plane. Bicondylar fracture types (V and VI) have the modifiers (A and P) of the main fracture plane for each column, and lateral (L) and medial (M) to denote the column. We are introducing the concept of the main fracture plane. Recognition of the exact location of the principal fracture plane is essential for preoperative planning of patient positioning, surgical approach and for determining where to apply the hardware to achieve stable fixation. The new three-dimensional classification is based on the template of the original Schatzker classification. It covers the mechanism of the injury, the energy of the trauma, the morphologic characteristics of the fracture and its location in three dimensions.

Revisiting the Schatzker classification of tibial plateau fractures.

Rates of secondary reduction loss in tibial plateau fractures ranged from 7% to 33% following treatment with calcium phosphate cement, and the percentage of patients with very good or good Lysholm scores ranged from 57% to 81%. Two small retrospective cohort studies suggest that use of calcium phosphate cement leads to decreased operative time compared with buttress plating and bone grafting. Whether loss of reduction is less common with calcium phosphate cement versus bone graft is unclear. Additional methodologically rigorous comparative studies with larger populations are necessary to establish the safety and effi cacy of calcium phosphate cement and to establish the superiority of calcium phosphate cement over bone grafting.

Tibial plateau fractures.

BACKGROUND Almost one-third of patients with proximal humeral fractures are treated surgically, and the number is increasing. When surgical treatment is chosen, there is sparse evidence on the optimum method. The DelPhi (Delta prosthesis-PHILOS plate) trial is a clinical trial comparing 2 surgical treatments. Our hypothesis was that reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) yields better clinical results compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using an angular stable plate. METHODS The DelPhi trial is a randomized controlled trial comparing reverse TSA with ORIF for displaced proximal humeral fractures (OTA/AO types 11-B2 and 11-C2) in elderly patients (65 to 85 years of age). The primary outcome measure was the Constant score at a 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included the Oxford Shoulder Score and radiographic evaluation. Results were reported as the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). The intention-to-treat principle was applied for crossover patients. RESULTS There were 124 patients included in the study. At 2 years, the mean Constant score was 68.0 points (95% CI, 63.7 to 72.4 points) for the reverse TSA group compared with 54.6 points (95% CI, 48.5 to 60.7 points) for the ORIF group, resulting in a significant mean difference of 13.4 points (95% CI, 6.2 to 20.6 points; p < 0.001) in favor of reverse TSA. When stratified for fracture classification, the mean score was 69.3 points (95% CI, 63.9 to 74.7 points) for the reverse TSA group and 50.6 points (95% CI, 41.9 to 59.2 points) for the ORIF group for type-C2 fractures, which yielded a significant mean difference of 18.7 points (95% CI, 9.3 to 28.2 points; p < 0.001). In the type-B2 fracture group, the mean score was 66.2 points (95% CI, 58.6 to 73.8 points) for the reverse TSA group and 58.5 points (95% CI, 49.6 to 67.4 points) for the ORIF group, resulting in a nonsignificant mean difference of 7.6 points (95% CI, -3.8 to 19.1 points; p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS At a 2-year follow-up, the data suggested an advantage of reverse TSA over ORIF in the treatment of displaced OTA/AO type-B2 and C2 proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

/pdf/reverse-shoulder-arthroplasty-is-superior-to-plate-fixation-3v3qbwl5v7.pdf

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is Superior to Plate Fixation at 2 Years for Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Elderly: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Intertrochanteric Femur Fracture Treatment in Asia: What We Know and What the World Can Learn.

Background Bone-graft substitutes are commonly used for the augmentation of traumatic bone defects in tibial plateau fractures. However, their clinical performance compared with that of autologous bone-grafting, the gold standard in bone defect reconstruction, still remains under debate. This study investigates the differences in quality of life, pain, and radiographic outcomes in the treatment of tibial plateau fracture-associated bone defects with either autologous bone grafts or a bioresorbable hydroxyapatite and calcium sulfate cement (CERAMENT BONE VOID FILLER [CBVF]; BONESUPPORT). Methods In this study, 135 patients with acute depression and split-depression fractures of the proximal part of the tibia (OTA/AO types 41-B2 and 41-B3) were enrolled in a prospective, controlled, randomized, multicenter trial including 20 hospitals in Germany. Patients were randomized to receive either autologous iliac bone graft or CBVF for reconstruction of the bone defect. The primary outcome measures were the Short Form (SF)-12 version 2 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score at week 26 (the study was designed to show noninferiority of the CBVF with regard to the PCS with a prespecified margin of -5 points) and the pain level at 26 weeks postoperatively measured by a visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes were the SF-12 version 2 Mental Component Summary (MCS) and SF-12 PCS scores at weeks 1, 6, and 12 and bone-healing on radiographs. Results Age, sex, fixation methods, and fracture pattern were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the SF-12 PCS or VAS scores at postoperative week 26. There was a significant reduction of blood loss (p = 0.007) and pain levels (p = 0.008) at postoperative day 1 in the CBVF group. The rates of fracture-healing, defect remodeling, and articular subsidence were not significantly different (p > 0.05) in both groups. Conclusions Bioresorbable CBVF was noninferior to autologous bone graft with regard to both patient-reported and radiographic outcomes in tibial plateau fractures of OTA/AO types 41-B2 and 41-B3. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Autologous Iliac Bone Graft Compared with Biphasic Hydroxyapatite and Calcium Sulfate Cement for the Treatment of Bone Defects in Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study.

From the *Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, ** Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospitial, University of California, San Francisco; *** Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, **** University of Iowa Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Iowa City, ***** Department of Orthopaedic Surgery; University of Louisville School of Medicine Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest. Material presented in this Compendium is based on the Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones by M.E. Müller, J. Nazarian, P. Koch and J. Schatzker, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990. The Orthopaedic Trauma Association is indebted to Professor Maurice Müller for allowing use of the system. Correspondence: James F. Kellam, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, MSB 6.146, Houston Texas, 77030 (e-mail: James.F.Kellam@uth.tmc.edu) Copyright © 2017 by AO Foundation, Davos, Switzerland; Orthopaedic Trauma Association, IL, US To encourage the use of this classification and this fracture classification compendium, the figures may be reproduced and the classification may be used for research, educational and or medical purposes without the need to request permission from the OTA, AO Foundation or the publisher. It cannot be used commercially or for-profit without permission. Foreword

Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

We encountered an error while loading the panel. Please try refreshing the page.

Something went wrong

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

Anyone with the link can view this chat. You can switch it back to private anytime.

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Karam

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2018