“…Of these, 34 patients had MM type I TSAFs (2.7%), 473 had MM type II TSAFs (38.2%), 637 had MM type III TSAFs (51.4%), and 37 had MM type IV TSAFs (2.9%). Three studies did not report the classification of their participants' TSAFs, accounting for 59 uncategorized participants (4.7%) [19,37,41]. A total of 976 TSAF patients were treated using ARIF (78.9%), 203 patients were managed using ORIF (16.4%), 54 patients were managed conservatively using closed reduction and casting (4.3%), and 4 patients were managed using a mixed approach (0.3%).…”
Section: Population Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thirteen studies reported outcomes with the use of screws only, of which ten studies used ARIF [18,21,[24][25][26]29,30,36,39,42], one study used ORIF [33], and two studies used both ARIF and ORIF [43,47]. Twelve studies reported outcomes with the use of sutures only, of which nine studies used ARIF [11,13,16,31,32,37,45,46,48], and three studies used both ARIF and ORIF [17,19,38]. Four studies directly compared the use of sutures with the use of screws [12,14,22,34].…”
Background: Tibial spine avulsion fractures (TSAFs) account for approximately 14% of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. This study aims to systematically review the current evidence for the operative management of paediatric TSAFs. Methods: A search was carried out across four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies discussing the outcomes of the surgical management of paediatric TSAFs since 2000 were included. Results: Of 38 studies included for review, 13 studies reported outcomes of TSAF patients undergoing screw fixation only, and 12 studies used suture fixation only. In total, 976 patients underwent arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF), and 203 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The risk of arthrofibrosis with the use of ARIF (p = 0.45) and screws (p = 0.74) for TSAF repair was not significant. There was a significantly increased risk of knee instability (p < 0.0001), reoperation (p = 0.01), and post-operative pain (p = 0.007) with screw fixation compared to sutures. Conclusions: While the overall benefits of sutures over screws and ARIF over ORIF are unclear, there is clear preference for ARIF and suture fixation for TSAF repair in practice. We recommend large-scale comparative studies to delineate long-term outcomes for various TSAF fixation techniques.
“…Of these, 34 patients had MM type I TSAFs (2.7%), 473 had MM type II TSAFs (38.2%), 637 had MM type III TSAFs (51.4%), and 37 had MM type IV TSAFs (2.9%). Three studies did not report the classification of their participants' TSAFs, accounting for 59 uncategorized participants (4.7%) [19,37,41]. A total of 976 TSAF patients were treated using ARIF (78.9%), 203 patients were managed using ORIF (16.4%), 54 patients were managed conservatively using closed reduction and casting (4.3%), and 4 patients were managed using a mixed approach (0.3%).…”
Section: Population Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thirteen studies reported outcomes with the use of screws only, of which ten studies used ARIF [18,21,[24][25][26]29,30,36,39,42], one study used ORIF [33], and two studies used both ARIF and ORIF [43,47]. Twelve studies reported outcomes with the use of sutures only, of which nine studies used ARIF [11,13,16,31,32,37,45,46,48], and three studies used both ARIF and ORIF [17,19,38]. Four studies directly compared the use of sutures with the use of screws [12,14,22,34].…”
Background: Tibial spine avulsion fractures (TSAFs) account for approximately 14% of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. This study aims to systematically review the current evidence for the operative management of paediatric TSAFs. Methods: A search was carried out across four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies discussing the outcomes of the surgical management of paediatric TSAFs since 2000 were included. Results: Of 38 studies included for review, 13 studies reported outcomes of TSAF patients undergoing screw fixation only, and 12 studies used suture fixation only. In total, 976 patients underwent arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF), and 203 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The risk of arthrofibrosis with the use of ARIF (p = 0.45) and screws (p = 0.74) for TSAF repair was not significant. There was a significantly increased risk of knee instability (p < 0.0001), reoperation (p = 0.01), and post-operative pain (p = 0.007) with screw fixation compared to sutures. Conclusions: While the overall benefits of sutures over screws and ARIF over ORIF are unclear, there is clear preference for ARIF and suture fixation for TSAF repair in practice. We recommend large-scale comparative studies to delineate long-term outcomes for various TSAF fixation techniques.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.